1976-02-24

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Under the terms of Standing Order 15(6) private members' hour on Mondays and Tuesdays is suspended after being reached 40 times. Since this session has been prolonged abnormally, private members now have at their disposal a much smaller proportion of our time than our rules intended. To correct this situation I would move, with unanimous consent, seconded by the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean):
That beginning on March 1, 1976, and for the remainder of the session, Standing Order 15(6) be suspended.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Since the economy of the Eastern Townships, in Quebec, depends largely on the textile and clothing industry that provides 32.5 per cent of the jobs in that area, but is now experiencing a serious recession, and in view of the fact that the CSD, Centrale des syndicats democratiques, has just published a report indicating that unemployment in the area could reach 10.6 per cent by the end of April, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That this House now discuss the Canadian tariff policy and its impact on employment and investments in the textile industry, in order to take as soon as possible the necessary steps to support this industry
and ensure that new industrial sectors will be able to absorb the surplus manpower from the textile sector.


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


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request unanimous consent of the House to present a motion on a matter of national interest and of pressing public importance.
In view of the obvious inadequacies in the television coverage of the recent leadership convention of the Progressive Conservative Party by the CBC French network, and more particularly in view of the fact that this network did not broadcast in their entirety, as did the English network, the speeches of the candidates, I move, seconded by the hon. members for Lafontaine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) and for Laval (Mr. Roy):
That this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, so that the management of CBC can be heard.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is no unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.

February 24, 1976
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the concern expressed by the president of the Union of National Defence employees with respect to base closures in the maritime provinces, particularly CFB Shearwater and CFB Greenwood, and the enormously disastrous effect this would have on the Annapolis Valley and the metropolitan area of Dartmouth and Halifax in economic terms, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan):
That the Minister of National Defence not later than Thursday of this week undertake on motions to give to this House, the provincial and municipal authorities involved, the fullest explanation respecting the status of any base closure plans, and to reiterate the firm assurances given by previous Ministers of National Defence and himself that no base closures will take place without the fullest consultation with these officials and this parliament.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that after ten months of negotiations, after assistance from a conciliation commissioner and subsequent consultations with the Anti-Inflation Board, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians (NABET) had reached agreement on all issues, including the monetary ones, for a new collective agreement, and in view of the fact that last Wednesday negotiations broke down because the CBC refused to agree to the inclusion of a clause which would permit re-opening of negotiations in the event the AIB reduced the proposed monetary settlement, I move, seconded by the hon. member for the Northwest Territories:
That this House urge the Secretary of State or the Minister of Labour to make clear to the CBC that it is the view of the government that all corporations, whether public or private, as a necessary part of bargaining in good faith during the period in which the anti-inflation program is in effect, should include a clause in all contracts which would lead to the re-opening of negotiations in the event a wage and benefit settlement be rejected by the Anti-Inflation Board.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with a very urgent and important matter, and I am convinced that because of its importance, no hon. member will oppose this motion.
Whereas the Canadian people have very strong feelings on the highly controversial question of capital punishment and that the decision either to abolish or to maintain capital punishment cannot logically be left solely to the Canadian parliamentarians, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That this House recommend the holding of a referendum on this matter and, in order to avoid an emotional debate, that the time required for holding such a referendum be as short as possible, and that members of the House abstain from campaigning in favour of or against capital punishment so as to really know the views of the Canadian people.


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 unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that Lockheed Aircraft Corporation has admitted paying at least $22 million in contract kickbacks in such countries as Turkey, The Netherlands, Italy and Japan, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie:
That the Minister of National Defence consider cancelling immediately any contracts with this corrupt corporation, a part of the dry rot of the all-powerful military and industrial complex about which the late President Eisenhower tried to warn the free world.
February 24, 1976


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PRESIDENT OF BELGIAN SENATE
Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before beginning the question period, I am sure all hon. members would wish to join with me in making welcome a very distinguished visitor and colleague who is present in our gallery this afternoon-the President of the Senate of Belgium, Mr. Pierre Harmel, to whom we extend a very warm and cordial welcome.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I will put my question to the Prime Minister.


An hon. Member:: Another red Tory.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Now that the festivities of the weekend are over, and in view of the fact that there are several potential leaders of the opposition to follow the hon. member, I wonder whether we could simply receive them as hon. members, the way they were the week before the convention.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: As the 1977 estimates show that budgetary spending in fiscal 1976 will be almost $2 billion higher than the forecast in the June 23 budget, would the Prime Minister explain to the House how such massive over-spending could take place in a time of expenditure restraint; and is it now fair for the House to assume that there will be a deficit this year of $5 billion, not $3.2 billion as forecast earlier in the June budget?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, when the President of the Treasury Board tabled the estimates he made a statement on this subject. I can understand that the hon. member was away and this is why he did not hear it.
Oral Questions


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As government revenues have lagged far behind expenditures in 1976 to the extent that there will be at least a $3.2 billion deficit and possibly something over a $5 billion deficit, would the Prime Minister explain to the House from what sources he hopes to raise money in the coming year to pay for the additional $3.7 billion in spending forecast in the estimates for 1977? I should like the Prime Minister to specifically answer that question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks for a specific answer to a budgetary question. He should know that the budget is dealt with in a way other than by answering questions.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A further supplementary question again for the Prime Minister, particularly in view of his reply to my first two questions. Since most groups of working Canadians, whether they be members of a union or a corporation, must now submit their past, current and future financial conditions to the scrutiny of the Anti-Inflation Board, would the Prime Minister indicate why the government is not coming clean with the Canadian people and revealing its own revenue, expenditure and deficit projections to the public, and specifically holding to those projections once they have been revealed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is making a completely unsubstantiated allegation. He should know that this House has budget dates. The estimates appear in the blue book which was tabled last week, accompanied by, I repeat, a statement which he obviously failed to hear.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the fact that section 12(l)(e) of Bill C-73 imposes on the Anti-Inflation Board the duty of commenting upon the "implications of the failure of governments to co-operate in combatting inflation", and also in view of the fact that the bill specifically provides for the law to be binding on all levels of government, would the President of the Treasury Board refer the 1977 main estimates to the AIB for an anti-inflation acid test; and in view of the 16 per cent increase would he say when he expects a reply from the board detailing what inflationary impact the proposed increase will have on government expenditure and whether there will be a revision of that expenditure?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I am terribly sorry that the hon. member has so low an opinion of the House of Commons, because there will be a debate on the expenditures and so on, and I think we have provided the House with all the information required. We made a statement in December, and I am sorry the hon. members do not want to handle the problem themselves but want it referred to someone else.

February 24, 1976
Oral Questions


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, would the minister not agree that Bill C-73, being the government's own legislation, imposes a duty on the government to observe all the strictures of the Anti-Inflation Board in regard to its expenditures? In view of this legislation does the minister expect that this government will confirm with any directive from the Anti-Inflation Board and, if necessary, the administrator? This is their own machinery.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we are obligated to conform with the legislation.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Why don't you then?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Out of 130,000 employees of government who negotiate their contracts with government we have settled with 75,000 of them all within the guidelines.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the minister has failed to answer the question in so far as the total expenditures of government and its proposed expenditure increase of 16 per cent this year in the estimates are concerned.


OIL AND NATURAL GAS-POSSIBLE INCLUSION OF WELLHEAD PRICE IN ANTI-INFLATION GUIDELINES
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, as one of the older leaders of a party in the House of Commons I have a question for an even older one. I address it to the right hon. Prime Minister. In light of the statement in the white paper on inflation that the government intends to permit the price of oil and gas to rise "toward world levels", and considering that the Premier of Nova Scotia has described such a position as hypocritical because of its lack of consistency with other aspects of the anti-inflation program, I would ask whether the government has given serious reconsideration to including the wellhead price of oil within the framework of the antiinflation guidelines?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I missed the beginning of the question, but I can assure the hon. member that there will be discussions with all the premiers on what the appropriate price of oil should be after the expiration of the present agreement which expires on July 1 next.


OIL-IMPACT PRICE INCREASE ON COST OF LIVING-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can he inform the House whether the government has now decided to at least not make a commitment to raise the price of oil to world levels, and has his department or any other department of government considered the impact of an increase in the price of oil of say $2 a barrel on the cost of living, and particularly

on the cost of energy in the Maritime provinces where oil is used as the major source of fuel for the production of electricity?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member realizes that as a matter of policy the government has been trying to cushion the effects of high international oil prices on the Maritime region. That region, perhaps more than any other in Canada, benefits from the cushioning, the subsidy or the compensation account. As the hon. member is fully aware, there will be discussions on this question. I think he has also indicated that we should try to cut government expenditures. He must realize that as we are becoming increasingly a net importer of oil there is a very much greater cost to the Canadian taxpayer.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, prior to reaching a decision, if the government has not already done so, will it undertake to make a study of the impact on the economy of Ontario, as the largest user of petroleum products, of an increase in the price of oil particularly because this will have a marked affect on the price of all manufactured goods produced in this province which must be consumed elsewhere in Canada.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, these are the types of questions we are taking into account as we approach the discussion to which the Prime Minister alluded.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Defence.
Following the international news leaks concerning Lockheed Aircraft Corporation Ltd. of the United States, the minister has met with the new directors of the company to discuss a contract of about a billion dollars. Has the minister reached any conclusion, has the contract been awarded or is the matter still under consideration?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I think that is very similar to a question I answered yesterday. The specific details of the contract are being negotiated by my colleague, the Minister of Supply and Services, who has that responsibility. I have also met with senior officials of the Lockheed Company who have assured me there were, as I said, no commissions or payments to any Canadian connected with the purchase or proposed contract, but we are still continuing to negotiate the terms of the contract.
February 24, 1976


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the right hon. Prime Minister.
As that same Lockheed company has been accused of having paid $23 million to election campaign organizations in foreign countries, can the Prime Minister tell the House whether Lockheed contributed to the Liberal party campaign funds?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the new Canada Elections Act makes it mandatory for political parties to reveal what funds they receive. We were pleased to publish our own reports. I have not checked whether the Social Credit Party of Canada has received funds from Lockheed, but I am eager to look into the matter.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have one last supplementary.
Lockheed Aircraft Corporation Ltd. stated it had given $23 million to political parties throughout the world. For the information of the Prime Minister, the Social Credit Party of Canada received no funds from that company. I am asking whether the Liberal party-I am not asking the Progressive Conservatives: they will make their reports later on-has received any money from Lockheed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I shall be pleased to check, but as I said before, reports on what the various parties got, including our own, are now published. The hon. member says he has received nothing, but I remember that, not long ago, in the House, he spoke of people who had received something, and later on changed his mind.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
In view of the traditional weakness of the textile industry in Canada, and particularly in Quebec, and considering the specific problem faced at the moment by Tricofil of Saint-Jerome following the refusal of banking institutions and credit unions to give them the credits required for the maintenance of their activities, can the minister tell the House whether he did receive a request for financial assistance from this industry of Saint-Jerome, either under the programs of his department or through the Federal Business Development Bank?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question because it gives me an opportunity also to reply to the Leader of the Social Credit Party. The answer is that there have been no requests or any form of representation to us
Oral Questions
in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce by the company in question. I am still looking into it to see whether there is anything we might be able to do, but so far as I understand it the relations have been purely between the company and the Government of Quebec.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. It is prompted by a sense of outrage over the loss of two more Canadian fishermen off Canada's east coast, making a total of six so far this year in three separate incidents. My question to the minister is whether he can explain to the House why from the time the fishing boat was reported missing on Sunday to the Halifax Rescue Centre at 7.50 p.m., it took almost 14 hours to get search aircraft into the area which was 500 miles to the east of Halifax.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must be referring to the fishing boat, the San Juan. According to my information, it was accompanied by a coastguard vessel. When the National Defence forces were called on, we sent a tracker aircraft and discovered the San Juan which had capsized. We are not yet certain what became of the two persons who were on board. As far as I am aware, the armed forces carried out their duties with great skill and discovered this vessel.


James Aloysius McGrath: May I ask the minister why it took a total of 14 hours to get aircraft into the air from Halifax to the scene which was 500 miles away, and will he undertake to investigate whether or not this costly critical delay could have resulted in the loss of the lives of these two fishermen. Perhaps while he is at it I might ask the minister how many more Canadian fishermen on Canada's east coast have to die before we will have a reassessment of the search and rescue capability of the forces.


James Armstrong Richardson: I will look into those facts, but it certainly does not seem to me that the armed forces would need 14 hours to reach the vessel. When we examine the facts we might find that they took a much shorter time and succeeded in their mission so far as their part in air and sea rescue is concerned.



FISHERIES


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary question is for the Minister of Fisheries. The information which I just gave to the House

February 24, 1976
Oral Questions
was given to me by the air and sea rescue centre in Halifax. May I ask the minister, who has a great deal of responsibility and a deep compassion, if he would undertake to make his own investigation into the time lag in providing an air and sea rescue operation, especially into the last three incidents which have resulted in the loss of the lives of six fishermen.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly undertake to look into this matter and do whatever I can. However, I would not want the hon. member's allegations to be taken to mean that National Defence and MOT have not helped fishermen in other circumstances, and I want it on the record that they have helped and have saved lives.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



OIL-IMPACT OF PRICE INCREASE ON PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND

Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance and ask him if he has received special representations from the government of Prince Edward Island with regard to the expected future increase in the cost of petroleum products because of the unique position of our province in that it will not only be affected directly by any increase in the cost of petroleum products but it is dependent entirely on the electric power generated from oil and therefore is doubly affected in that regard. Is the minister giving special consideration to Prince Edward Island, at least until such time as the island's grid system can be tied into that of the other Maritime provinces?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the premiers of both provinces and the ministers of both Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia have laid emphasis on the dependence of their systems upon imported petroleum and have pointed this out to us in past discussions. We are certainly aware of this problem and we will be considering it fully in the discussions that will be coming up during the course of the spring, both with regard to the pricing of oil and the equalization payments.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence and arises out of the concern expressed by Mr. Joe Power, president of UNDE and other municipal and provincial authorities in Nova Scotia with respect to widespread rumours, apparently well founded, that consideration is being given by the Minister of National Defence to recommending to his cabinet some time in March that CFB Greenwood be closed and that there be a substantial reduc-

tion in the number of people, both military and civilian, employed at Shearwater. Can the minister indicate to the House whether or not it is a fact that under the base closure program progress in this direction is being considered and, if it is being considered, whether or not, together with that consideration, the assured promises of this minister and his predecessors are being followed with respect to full consultations with the provincial and municipal authorities directly involved.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member used the right terminology when he said there were widespread rumours. No recommendations have been made to cabinet concerning the base infrastructure study. As I have said before, we do have the objective of trying to reduce the overhead and the support services in relation to our operating capability, and that study is proceeding. It may mean the reduction of some bases, it may mean an increase in others, it may mean a consolidation of bases. I cannot comment on the individual bases concerned until the study is complete and the recommendations have been made to cabinet.


J. Michael Forrestall: I apologize for my voice, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister of National Defence indicate, just to make clear, that in fact recommendations and plans in that particular area are being considered, and can he tell the House whether those recommendations will go to cabinet in March of this year or some time later in the year?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I would expect the recommendations to be ready by March but I cannot say how long cabinet will wish to study them after they have been made.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PRIME MINISTER OF PAKISTAN

Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before recognizing another questioner, perhaps hon. members would want to join with me in recognizing the arrival a moment ago in our gallery of another very distinguished visitor opening his visit to Canada. I refer of course to the presence in our gallery of His Excellency Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Prime Minister of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State which arises out of a question asked by my colleague, the hon. member for Vaudreuil, yesterday. What is the CBC's explanation for the unsatisfactory coverage by Radio-Canada of my party's leadership
February 24, 1976

convention, the results of which will have profound effects on the future of our country?


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the CBC French television network covered the Progressive Conservative convention in a Thursday evening telecast and Friday evening telecast.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Only summaries.


Coline M. Campbell: On Saturday they gave summaries from 11.10 p.m. to 12.40 a.m. due to the fact that a simultaneous translation had to be given to the French audience. As well, on Sunday they covered the total convention from 2.30 p.m. to the end of the convention at 9.10 p.m.



REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGED BUGGING OF BALLOT COUNTING

Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Would the parliamentary secretary be so good as to investigate the allegations made in the press today of the bugging of the voting during that convention by the CBC, particularly in view of the great importance we all place on the protection of privacy?


Coline M. Campbell: I am also informed by the CBC that a press release is going out in connection with this article and that the Conservative Party officials within that room mistook a transmitter for a microphone.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Coline M. Campbell: When they discovered the mistake, they quickly reconnected the transmitter, and the Conservatives had it reconnected. The reason the transmitter was in this particular place was that it was the centre of the arena, and for transmitting back and forth to the newsmen from the box the transmitter had to be in that particular spot. As I have already pointed out, as soon as the mistake was made the Conservatives quickly reconnected that transmitter.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the Solicitor General. Have the RCMP or any other law enforcement agency investigated the reports in the written media with respect to the placing of listening devices in the ballot counting room of convention headquarters, and have any charges been laid or are any contemplated by the RCMP?
Oral Questions


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Not to my
knowledge, Mr. Speaker, but I will check with the RCMP to see if they have received any complaints.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Hon. Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the minister examine the report issued today by Amnesty International alleging numerous incidents of torture in Uruguay? Then, will he consider expressing to the government of Uruguay the revulsion of Canadians to this and appealing to Uruguay to accept an impartial international investigation of such allegations?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the report, but I will investigate it as the hon. member has requested and consider the action he had recommended.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, and I have informed him that I would do so. When will the minister table the Eaton report on the fire which occurred in No. 26 colliery in Glace Bay last summer?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to thank the hon. member who gave me notice of his question. An investigation has been made indeed following the fire in this colliery in June 1975 but I have not yet received the report. As soon as I have it, I shall see whether it is possible to make it public.



REQUEST FOR SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TO DEAL WITH UNEMPLOYMENT

Andrew Hogan: In
view of the fact that we are going to have the third in a series of emergency meetings on the problem of unemployment in the Cape Breton area and that this meeting, which is coming up on the first of April, will be with regard to the midterm unemployment problem, would the minister guarantee that he will give us special assistance in this matter?


Marcel Lessard: Concerning the meetings which have taken place and the one referred to by the hon. member, for the purpose of finding solutions to the present unemployment

Oral Questions
crisis in Cape Breton, the hon. member is aware that recommendations have already been made and that others are being studied by the two levels of government concerned. We all hope that decisions will eventually be made and that we shall thus be able, with all the resources at our disposal, to bring about a solution to this unemployment question. Unfortunately, as the hon. member knows, this situation is a difficult one and it does not prevail only in the area which concerns him personally but also in the entire Atlantic region.
* *
*



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It refers to the estimates which were tabled in the House just recently, and in particular, the grim chapter dealing with the Unemployment Insurance Commission. To what extent will the minister's department address itself to the serious problem of overpayments to claimants, which is now estimated to be in the range of $40 million to $50 million per year?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, an answer to this question would require some detail, and in fact this has been the subject of discussion and explanation before the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration. When my estimates are before that committee again-that is, the estimates of the Unemployment Insurance Commission-I will be glad to set forth the very efficient methods of administration of the commission for dealing with that particular problem.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of Regional Economic Expansion, and I have given him notice of it. Is there any ongoing liaison between Canada Manpower and DREE regarding enforcement of the provisions of the Regional Development Incentives Act for the reporting of job opportunities by DREE funded companies?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, obviously consultations are held between both departments concerned about job generating and opportunities offered to companies which request our department's financial assistance to help them rebuild their facilities. But it is understood that we cannot always impose workers to companies because there is a matter of qualification and other specific requirements. Generally

speaking, one can say that there is a close cooperation between both departments and the possible employers.



RELATIONSHIP OF INCREASE IN CHEESE IMPORTS TO CONTRACTUAL LINK WITH EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister be prepared to say that the government policy to increase importation of cheese to 10 per cent is related to the contractual link he attempted to make with the European Economic Community?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the so-called contractual link is in the process of being negotiated. The question of trading with the European communities is, of course, linked to that, and the matter of cheese is also linked to that. However, I answered this question a few days ago to the effect that we have undertaken to increase the quota of imports, but this year, because of national circumstances, we had not increased the import but held it at the previous level.
*
* *



AGRICULTURE


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that an increase in imported cheese of 50 million pounds would automatically cut back the requirement of Canadian milk, is the minister still in full agreement with this policy, or is there a trade off and has he been had by the Prime Minister?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the hon. member is talking about because the Prime Minister said once before in the House, and he said again today, that there would be no increase in the quota on cheese. Last year was the first time we imposed a quota on specialty cheese coming into Canada, making it 50 million pounds. That is what it is going to be this year. We had further discussions here the other day with the head of the European community about the problem we are confronting with regard to dairy surpluses. Even if we abolish the whole 50 million pounds of imports, of specialty cheeses, that would not solve the surplus problem.



STUDY OF EFFECT OF RED FOOD DYE-REQUEST FOR REPORT

Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that scientists and government agencies in
February 24, 1976

Canada and the United States sharply disagree as to whether red food dyes are harmful to the human system, has the minister any new information on this very important subject, primarily as a result of a study conducted by his department of scientific information gathered in the United States? Has there been any conclusion reached?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing further to add to what I reported in my last answer on this question. My department is still studying in detail the studies made in the United States, especially by the food and drug administration, but at the present time there is no indication of the necessity for any change in the current policy.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General, who seems to have had some spare time lately, so much so that one can only assume he has solved all the problems in his department. Can he inform the House of the situation with regard to the negotiations with the postmasters of Canada?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, if the question of the hon. member refers ot the Canadian Postmasters' Association, a tentative collective agreement was reached and signed last Friday. If it refers to individual postmasters who are not unionized, who are considered management but really lie in between, their salaries are under negotiation with the Treasury Board at the present moment.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister consult his code of ministerial ethics to ascertain whether a cabinet minister's moonlighting over the weekend at an activity designed to replace his government at the first opportunity constitutes a conflict of interest?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge.



FOREIGN INVESTMENT


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce concerns the take-over of Checkerboard Foods by Swift Canadian. Last week the minister told the House that so far as he is concerned, FIRA had accepted the
Oral Questions
take-over and that he agreed with the decision, but that it had to be referred to the combines investigation branch for a decision on their part. My question is this: How soon can we expect an answer from the combines investigation people, because the company will close down tomorrow and there is no time to fool around between one department and another. Second, if the ruling of the combines investigation people is adverse, is the minister prepared to defend the decision of FIRA and support the company's application?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, to answer the first part of the question, we will deal with this matter on an urgent basis, I hope in the next day or two. On the question of whether I would, to use the hon. member's expression, defend the FIRA decision, let me say that I do not think the matter can be approached in precisely that way. It would be a matter of whether or not the Combines Investigation Act takes precedence in law. This is a highly technical issue and it is now being discussed.



EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I, also, have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Last November 21 I asked if cabinet had completed its consideration of what its policy should be on the matter of the Export Development Corporation and the Arab boycott of Israel. The minister replied that it had not been completed, but he believed it was scheduled for consideration two or three weeks from that Monday coming. That was over nine weeks ago, the matter has been pending since last May and there still has been no decision announced by cabinet. I therefore ask him if he can now say when there will be such a decision and announcement.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I regret the delay, but a number of urgent and pressing matters have had to be dealt with and, unfortunately, I have not had the opportunity to deal with this matter as rapidly as I would have liked. I assure the hon. member that I will deal with it as fast as I can. In the meantime, I think the position of the government on this question is well known, as enunciated by the Prime Minister.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

Oral Questions



INQUIRY WHETHER PERMITS HAVE BEEN ISSUED FOR IMPORTATION OF POULTRY

Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Considering that the poultry producers' quotas will be greatly reduced during the next months, which will in turn reduce their revenue, can the minister tell the House whether his department issued licences or permits for the importation of poultry during 1975? If so, can the minister tell if he did so on the recommendation of the Minister of Agriculture?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I do not have that information in front of me. I ask the hon. member to permit me to take the question as notice. I will give him the information as rapidly as I can.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. During the Prime Minister's recent visit to British Columbia, he raised the subject of capital punishment. He said that the possibility exists that the government will have to hang some people. As the majority of Canadians favour the return of capital punishment, but not necessarily hanging by the rope, would the Prime Minister consider having this subject matter referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, for investigation of other methods of applying capital punishment? The committee could report back to the House. I believe this would help hon. members greatly in their deliberations on this important subject.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, we shall give first reading today to two bills, one of which will deal with this very subject. The hon. member knows my view, and I think many hon. members of this House do, that abolition will be accepted by this parliament. I would think if that does not happen, we could address ourselves to the question raised by the hon. member: how should we destroy these people.



POSSIBILITY OF VOTE OF CONFIDENCE ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT BILL

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister and is on the subject of the free vote on the bill being introduced today. The Prime Minister said in a letter sent to members of parliament that there would be a free vote on capital punishment. But the government risks defeat on the issue, in any event. As, by his statement, the Prime Minister delayed indefinitely the introduction of the bill until he

had gathered the support he wants, is he not making the capital punishment vote a vote of confidence in the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand the argument of the hon. member. We have indicated that the whip "would not be on" for this vote. The fact that we have delayed until today is a courtesy shown to the hon. member's party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They have a new leader and I expect he will meet his caucus tomorrow. Perhaps hon. members opposite can decide in their caucus if they want to make following him on this vote an issue of confidence in their leader.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Last week the Prime Minister said that the "whips would not be on" for the purposes of the capital punishment vote. I ask the Prime Minister what meaning he puts on this, because when he wrote to members of parliament, he told them that an adverse vote could bring down the government. So, what does he mean when he says there will be a free vote? Is he implying that there will be no whip on the back benches but only on the cabinet?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's allegations are false.



CUSTOMS


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. I know that the minister has received numerous representations expressing concern that the tariff regulations relating to imported religious materials in practice are being changed by individual customs officials. Has the minister sent, or is he prepared to send, a memo to all customs officials re-affirming his department's policy that all religious materials, especially printed material, shall enter this country duty free?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, being a Christian, I do not want to make a mistake in talking about the Bible. I assure the hon. member that duty is not, and never has been, charged on Bibles or on any book used for the promotion of, or advancement of, a specific religion or specific religious concept. That information is known to my officials. If the hon. member will let me know of any who do not know it, I will sure let them know.
February 24, 1976



TRANSPORT


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. The council of maritime premiers, meeting in its twenty first session in Bridgewater, Nova Scotia, on February 2 and 3, expressed in its press release gravest misgivings over the recent announcement by the federal Minister of Transport concerning changes in national transportation policies. They expressed special concern about the possible curtailment of rail service and other forms of transportation, which would severely reduce harbour, air and other transport facilities, thereby raising costs to consumers in the region. In light of the concern of the maritime premiers, does the minister intend to meet with the premiers, in the hope of clarifying his transport policy and allaying their fears? If so, when can we expect such a meeting?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would, of course, be prepared to meet with the premiers. I can tell the hon. member that subsequent discussions I have had lead me to believe that their fears were allayed when they learned that the transport policy involved the upgrading of facilities which can reasonably be kept in Canada, and learned that we intend to maintain good passenger train facilities in Canada. I think the premiers were reacting to press reports based on erroneous opposition comments made at the time.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Len Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and relates to his meeting yesterday with the minister of labour for British Columbia who is also in charge of Indian affairs. Has the minister made new progress on the procedures to settle long outstanding cut-off land claims and on those relating to the broader question of aboriginal rights in all British Columbia?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I had a good discussion with the Hon. Allan Williams on the question of cut-off lands. I think his approach is somewhat different from that of his predecessor. In the long run it will be much more satisfactory from the Indian people's point of view.
Criminal Law Amendment Act (No. 2), 1976



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning the first item of business which the House considered this day, the motion moved by myself, seconded by the hon. member for Malpeque, pursuant to Standing Order 43, which deals with the restoration of private member's hour by the suspension of Standing Order 15(6).
I am not pointing any finger, Mr. Speaker, but unfortunately someone did say no. However, from the point of view of House business, I wish to ask whether that meets with the general approval of the President of the Privy Council and whether he might consider, and perhaps consult in a way that we could succeed in the suspension of that Standing Order so that private members would have an opportunity of having their matters heard during this long session of parliament.


Mr. Sharp:: Mr. Speaker, the answer, in brief, is yes. If necessary, I will bring down an order to accomplish the same purpose.


CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 1), 1976 MEASURES FOR BETTER PROTECTION OF CANADIAN SOCIETY AGAINST VIOLENT CRIME
Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-83, for the better protection of Canadian society against perpetrators of violent and other crime.


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

William Warren Allmand: for leave to introduce Bill C-84, to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
Order Paper Questions

Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to section 19 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Chapter E-2, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, to lay upon the table of the House a certified copy of the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Northwest Territories.


FILING OF PETITION OBJECTING TO REPORT OF COMMISSION RESPECTING PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the House that an objection signed by the hon. members for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan), Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), Central Nova (Mr. McKay), Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles), Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather), Malpeque (Mr. MacLean), Regina East (Mr. Balfour), and Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway), has been filed with me pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, chapter E-2, RSC, 1970, to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Nova Scotia.
If the House agrees, I would suggest we follow past practice and print the text of the objection as an appendix to this day's Votes and Proceedings. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For text of above petition, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mitchell William Sharp: That the supplementary report of the Chief Electoral Officer, made pursuant to section 59(1) of the Canada Elections Act, dated February 13, 1976, and tabled by Mr. Speaker, February 16, 1976, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Mr. Speaker:: The President of the Privy Council requires unanimous consent for the putting of this motion at this time. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


[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: 3,514, 3,542, 3,543, 3,647, 3,905, 3,906, 3,939, 3,952, 3,974 and 3,979.


Mr. Lachance: 1.	Does it cost twelve dollars to send, by air cargo from New York to Montreal, a letter weighing one ounce in a 10" X 13" envelope and five dollars more to the addressee to clear the said letter at customs and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Are clearance fees provided for in the Act and/or in the Regulations on Customs and Excise and, if not, does the government intend to suggest to Air Canada to end such practice?
3.	Is Air Canada's air cargo tariff subject to government approval with respect to (a) the type of parcel (b) its weight (c) the category of shipment and, if not, is it subject to any external control?


Mitchell William Sharp: am informed by the Canadian Transport Commission and the Department of National Revenue as follows: 1. The minimum transportation charge for a single shipment between Montreal and New York is $12. The customs processing minimum charge of $5. is an accessorial charge for the presentation of the shipment for customs clearance.
2.	Clearance fees are not provided for under the Customs Act or regulations, therefore, charges applied by Air Canada do not fall within the purview of Customs and Excise.
3.	Air Canada Air Cargo Tariffs are not specifically approved by the Canadian Transport Commission, but are required to be filed in accordance with the Air Carrier Regulations and are accepted for filing by the Air Transport Committee who have the power to suspend or disallow any tariff, require an air carrier to substitute a tariff or toll satisfactory to the Committee or prescribe another tariff or toll in lieu of any tariff or toll so disallowed. Types of parcel, the weight and category of shipment are essential elements of air cargo pricing, and the carriers are prohibited from applying any rules or tolls which are not effective in tariffs published and available to the public.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): With reference to the recent agreement on Phase 2 of the PEI Comprehensive Development Plan, what programmes are included which will help local, rural communities, as distinguished from subregional aggregates, to (a) maintain their cohesion in the face of modernization and rationalization (b) maximize participation in local decision-making (c) adapt government programmes to local needs?


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: (a) All the programs in Phase 2 can help local, rural communities maintain cohesion, (b) Local decision making is a municipal-provincial matter, (c) Government programs are based on local needs. All programs are continuously monitored to allow for modification.
February 24, 1976


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): With reference to the agricultural sector of Phase 2 of the PEI Comprehensive Development Plan, is there any provision in the agreement for the establishment of an overall planning section in the Provincial Department of Agriculture?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: No.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to Question No. 3,124 (a) what are the reasons for the sizeable increases in the number of employees hired in high salary brackets (b) was the government's restraint programme taken into account when the extra persons were hired (c) is it the intention of the Minister of Supply and Services to continue expansion of his Department, particularly high salaried employees, at the same rate that has applied since January 1, 1974?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: (a) On October 15, 1975, there were 161 incumbents on strength in the Department of Supply and Services who had been hired after January 1, 1974 and who were within the $20,000 or more salary range. Of these, ten were within the $30,000 or more salary range. In the $20,000 to $30,000 wage bracket, 99 persons were hired as replacements for previously incumbered positions, while 52 were hired to initially staff newly created positions. In the over $30,000 wage bracket, eight persons were hired as replacements for previously incumbered positions, while two were hired to initially staff newly created positions. The remaining increase in the number of persons in both wage brackets was due to the government-wide salary revisions which took place during the period, (b) The persons mentioned above were hired prior to the announcement of the government's restraint programme, (c) It is the intention of the Minister of Supply and Services to comply with the Treasury Board guidelines announced on December 18, 1975 in the House of Commons.



TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT AGENCY FELLOWSHIP


Mr. Marshall: 1.	Did the Directorate of Public Affairs in the Department of Transport contact Memorial University of Newfoundland to advise them of the Transportation Development Agency Fellowship Programme and, if so, on what date?
2.	Have applications been received from the University and, if so, by whom were they submitted?


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. While the Directorate of Public Affairs did issue a press communique on this programme, it did not contact Memorial University of Newfoundland directly to advise them of the TDA Fellowship Programme. However, as indicated in the reply to question No. 3,809, the Transportation Development Agency, which administers the TDA Fellowship Programme on behalf of Transport Canada, forwarded to Memorial University informa-
Order Paper Questions
tion and application forms of the Fellowship Programme on November 11, 1975.
2. The Transportation Development Agency has not, to date, received applications from Memorial University.



SHIPBUILDING SUBSIDIES

Mr. Marshall: Under the federal expenditure reductions, will any of the reductions under Industry, Trade and Commerce-$15 million budgetary, affect shipbuilding subsidies in the Province of Newfoundland?


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Based on applications now on hand and expected applications, we do not expect that the $15 million budgetary reductions for the fiscal year 1976-77 will affect shipyards located in the province of Newfoundland.



PARDONS FROM CRIMINAL RECORDS

Mr. Saltsman: 1.	How many applications for pardons from previous criminal records have been received in the past twelve months?
2.	How many have been processed?
3.	How many pardons have been granted in the past twelve months?
4.	What is the average amount of time required from receipt of the application to the final processing?
5.	For what reason does it take so long and what action can be taken to speed up the process?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: 1, 2 and 3. At the end of December 1974, 3,149 applications for pardon were under review. During 1975, 3,210 applications for pardon were received and 1,079 pardons were granted. At the end of December 1975, 5,660 applications were under investigation.
4.	Eight to 12 months.
5.	The long period of time required to process an application for pardon is due to the lengthy and complex investigation done in every case. Furthermore, this investigation involves requesting information from agencies over which we do not exercise administrative control. This situation, impeded by the ever-growing number of requests received and the limited resources with respect to staff within the Clemency and Criminal Records Act Division, has not helped to reduce the period of time required to process an application for pardon. At the present time a study is underway to review the entire process and determine if guidelines could be established which would permit shorter investigation in some circumstances. This study should also establish improved administrative systems for most stages of the investigating process. This study will also help to determine if additional staff is required to meet the ever-growing demand for pardons under the Criminal Records Act. In the meantime, manpower resources have been diverted from other branches of the National Parole Board to reduce the backlog which has accumulated for reasons noted above.

February 24, 1976
Order Paper Questions



FLIGHTS TO POINTS WEST OF NEW BRUNSWICK

Mr. Fair-weather: How many passengers flew from the Saint John, New Brunswick Airport to points west of New Brunswick in (a) 1973 (b) 1974 (c) 1975 and, of these, how many were on flights to (i) Boston (ii) Montreal (iii) Toronto?


Ralph Goodale: Table I following provides the requested passenger statistics based on origin statistics. These figures consist of schedule data only. Table II following provides the requested passenger statistics based on traffic flow statistics. These figures consist of scheduled data only. Table II following contains data on charter operations between Saint John and foreign points (all west of New Brunswick). Further descriptions of the above statistics appear on the attached sheets.



TABLE I


[Stage Direction]
Year	Passengers	Passengers	Passengers	PassengersOriginating	Originating	Originating	Originatingin	in	in	inSaint	Saint	Saint	SaintJohn	John	John	Johndestined	destined	destined	destinedfor	for	for	forpoints west of New Brunswick	Montreal	Toronto	Boston1973	49,465	14,950	16,035	4,0101974	58,540	17,230	18,810	3,9501975	(Data for 1975 are not yet available)	Table	I-Origin statistics refers	to the first	point in the
itinerary (i.e. the point where the passenger first board an air carrier at the beginning of his trip).
TABLE II*

[Stage Direction]
Year	Passengers next stop west of New Brunswick	Passengers next stop Montreal	Passengers next stop Toronto	Passengen next stop Boston1973	52,609	28,460	912	23,2371974	40,918	23,399	-***	17,5191975**	51,300	27,100	10,200	13,000
* Table II-The traffic flow statistics in this table are the passengers on scheduled flights which departed from the Saint John airport. These passengers did not necessarily originate in Saint John. Passengers whose next stop is in the interior of New Brunswick with their ultimate destination west of New Brunswick would not be counted in these statistics.
** Annual 1975 traffic flow statistics have been estimated from 9 months of data. The 51,300 includes an estimated 1,000 passengers to Quebec City.

*** There was a small amount of traffic flying directly to Toronto in 1974 which was not contained in the traffic sample. This volume is estimated at less than 1,000 passengers.


[Stage Direction]
Year	Departing to
	points west
	of New
	Brunswick
1973	NIL
1974	333
1975	NIL (First six months)

Mr. Whittaker: 1.	How many Canadians are receiving the Old Age Pension?
2.	How many have a per annum income over $6,000?


Marc Lalonde: 1. 1,954,000 as of December 31, 1975.
2. The information requested is not available in departmental records. (Note: Net income has no bearing in determining eligibility for receipt of the Old Age Security pension. Net income is a factor only in the determination of eligibility for receipt of Guaranteed Income Supplement and spouse's Allowance.)



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-ACQUISITION OF BOAT TO SERVE MONTMAGNY AND GROSSE-lLE

Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	Did the Department of Agriculture, in 1975, acquire a boat to serve Montmagny and Grosse-Ile and, if so (a) from whom (b) at what cost?
2.	Was the boat repaired or modified before being put into service and, if so (a) at what cost (b) by whom?


Eugene Whelan: 1. Yes. (a) Eastern Equipment Limited, P.O. Box 10, Lachine, Quebec, (b) $31,500.
2. No. (a) Not applicable; (b) Not applicable.
* * ** *



STARRED QUESTION

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. 4,015?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
February 24, 1976



SLAUGHTER OF STEERS AND HEIFERS

Mr. Korchinski: 1.	How many steers and heifers were marketed for slaughter for the period August 12, 1974 to August 11, 1975?
2.	How many applications have been received by the government for the 48 cents per hundredweight assistance (a) to December 31, 1975 (b) to date?
3.	To date, what is the amount of government payments under this scheme?


Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is:
1. 2,509,293
2.	(a) 10,311, (b) 15,996.
3.	$2,840,631.36.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, February 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-68, to amend the Medical Care Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie).


Mr. Rodriguez:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I bring to Your Honour's attention that when we were last debating this bill, I believe I called it ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: I am now informed that the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) is correct. He had the floor at the conclusion of the previous debate. The hon. member for Nickel Belt.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, when I called it ten o'clock at the conclusion of the last time we were debating this bill, I had pointed out that this party considers Bill C-68 a denial and a cutback of a right which this party fought very hard to change for the Canadian people. We fought to have in Canada a Medical Care Act which provided a basic medicare program to those provinces which chose to participate in it. It should be pointed out that the federal government contributes to the cost of medicare to the tune of 50 per cent in any program which a province embarks upon. I pointed out last time that this did not include any special provincial programs for the benefit of their citizens, such as denticare or pharmacare which are paid for 100 per cent by the provinces. The federal government does not put one nickel into those kinds of programs.
Medical Care Act
Bill C-68, which will cut the federal government's contribution to any increase in medicare costs to 13 per cent, places participating provinces on the horns of a dilemma. I previously pointed out that the province of Ontario, for example, was forced to adopt an alternative which the citizens of that province are finding very prejudicial to proper medical care. The Ontario minister of health, without any prior consultation with the communities or staffs involved, is running from hospital to hospital, followed by a coterie of press people, announcing the closing of a hospital here and a hospital there. Rather than cutting back on the federal government's contribution to medicare, this party feels that it should be increased. We should be moving into the field of preventive medicine.
This party has taken a very positive stand with regard to prevention. We have always been in favour of denticare programs because it seemed to us it was much better to identify dental problems early and embark upon remedial work amoung young patients while it was easier and less expensive to do so.
I have stated before that the government stands condemned for its failure to introduce any kind of program with respect to occupational hazards. In particular, the government has a responsibility for occupational health in uranium mines. On the basis of our experience in the uranium mining operation at Elliot Lake, we have pointed out that the government cannot avoid its responsibilities under the Atomic Energy Control Act. The federal government stands condemned for its failure to enforce safety standards under the act. It seems they are prepared to allow these workers to continue mining in very dangerous conditions as a result of which they end up with silicosis or cancer of the lungs. The cost is borne, finally, by the taxpayers of this country, and this is something which should not be necessary.
We have pointed out, too, that among the government's own employees, in the year 1974-75 there were 22,280 accidents which cost our taxpayers $7 million, a figure which does not include the cost of medicare. Where is the government's safety program directed at the welfare of its own workers? We feel a great deal could be done to cut costs by developing an industrial safety program in this area. Where are the priorities in this country? We are prepared to spend over a billion dollars for the Olympics. There is no stopping of the taps when it comes to that event; we let the expenditure go up and up. We saw only the other day that a parking lot for cars is to cost $60 million instead of $30 million. Bread and circuses: they will be the downfall of the government across the way. As I say, we are prepared to spend over a billion dollars for a two-week performance of muscle-building by a very select group of athletes, while we do not appear to be concerned about embarking upon a program of preventive medical care in this country.
We in this party have urged greater use of paramedics as a means of improving health standards generally. We have called attention to the fact that out-patient facilities are sadly lacking. Far from cutting back expenditure in this area, this is one direction in which we should be increasing it. The government does not need to concern itself about disciplining the provinces, bearing in mind the provinces themselves have to contribute 50 per cent of the cost of the

February 24, 1976
Medical Care Act
medicare program. In addition, they must pay 100 per cent of the cost of any special programs upon which they may choose to embark.
The party to which I belong has urged the minister responsible to withdraw this bill. We are making this suggestion again today in very positive terms. The government ought to withdraw the bill and seek ways in which to implement a program of preventive medicine, as well as means by which reasonable steps could be taken to economize, if hon. members opposite so desire. Pushing the bill through the House now can only result in actions by the provinces which will be deleterious to the health of their people; it will force them to set priorities which involve the saving of money in very narrow areas.
One would assume the government would agree that the idea of bringing together the ministers of health was a good one. After all, the party opposite has always talked about participatory democracy. What happened to that notion? If he has the health of the people in mind, it is surely not beyond the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) to call together his provincial colleagues and talk this matter out with them once more. We know already how it is affecting the people of Ontario, for example. The minister of health of that province does not consult with the municipalities or with the communities concerned. He does not consult with the staff of the hospitals who are affected by his decisions. For dramatic effect, he drives around in a big limousine announcing he is closing this hospital or that hospital. He zaps them!


An hon. Member:: What?


John R. Rodriguez: I said "zap". By doing so, he creates a problem for the community concerned. That is not a reasonable way of determining priorities, it seems to me. I suppose it is the Liberal way of doing things.
I would direct attention, now, to a field with which we have concerned ourselves very little, the field of mental health. A reasonable way to approach this problem, it seems to me, would be by making treatment programs available to school boards to enable early identification of young people who might be encountering emotional problems so that ways could be found of helping such persons adjust to the situation. Instead of providing adequate facilities and personnel to make this possible, it seems we are prepared to let this situation boil over, and when a problem is created for society we shall simply lock these people up and throw away the key while we run around demanding what we call law and order. To my way of thinking we could spend, with advantage, a lot more money on the treatment and care of the mentally afflicted. Again, this is a subject which might well be discussed at a meeting of the health ministers.
Again I call upon the government to withdraw this bill and reconsider the whole question at a meeting with the provincial ministers, in an effort to arrive at a solution of the problem in a way which would be much more appealing and satisfactory to the people of Canada.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, it is always a responsibility for a member to address himself to an important piece of legislation. We have a great deal of legislation before us. I sometimes think we have become

something of a legislative treadmill. We never seem to catch up with our order paper or get down to what we have planned to do. For instance, I think that after ten years it is time we disposed of the national anthem bill one way or the other.
In these times it is important to make a major effort to produce legislation of vital content. In the days of Mackenzie King and R. B. Bennett there used to be two parliamentary sessions a year. Under the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) we have two years per session, so it is very confusing as to what is priority legislation. But if I were a man capable of righteous indignation, I would be indignant about this particular bill. I do not make any pretence to being a righteous man, nor am I often indignant, but I believe this bill is the most serious, hurtful and dangerous piece of legislation that I have seen in all the years I have been here-which is now nearly a score. It is dangerous, hurtful and iniquitous because it is doing just the opposite to what the representatives of the people in this people's institution should be doing.
If there is any maxim that should govern us, which should direct those who govern the state, it is clearly that those in society who most need help should be helped the most. Today we find ourselves in the midst of an austerity program. We are in an anti-inflation mood. And who are the chief targets of the operation? The elderly people.
Not long ago, Mr. Speaker, we knocked off the unemployment roll the poor old guys who had worked for years and years. When they reached 65 years of age they were told, "It's too bad, but you are out of luck". We are now doing this with the sick. I agree with what the former speaker said. A lot of nonsense comes out of the NDP corner, and I have been listening to it for many years; but they are not always wrong. I am appalled to read about hospitals being closed. The only way that policy can be justified in a civilized society would be if we had reached the stage where the hospitals had empty beds. Yet we all know that thousands and thousands of Canadians want hospital care and are not able to get it. People all over this country have been told, "Yes, we might get you in in 9 months, 10, or perhaps 15. But unless it is a terrible emergency, unless you have a 50 per cent chance of dying tomorrow, you won't get in".
Despite all the slick optimism of a publication called "A New Perspective on the Health of Canadians", we all know that today we are not providing adequate health services for the Canadian people. To bring in a piece of legislation that is clearly designed to diminish the effectiveness and the range of services now being offered is-and I choose my words carefully-criminal injustice. It is an outrage to the sick people of this country, to the people who most need compassion, who most need care and who most need to be in the thoughts of all of us here today.
I thought my colleague from Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges) came out with a very fine truism. He expressed it in a very articulate way in this debate a few days ago when he said that health is not a privilege that should be tied to the bank account of the state. I am not a stubborn man, but no one can convince me that there is any justice, rationale or wisdom in making a move to strengthen the economy by
February 24, 1976

hitting at the sick, the infirm, the aged and the ill in our society. It is repugnant, and should be repugnant to any man or woman of compassion as he or she views the needs of the Canadian people.
My former leader, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), has taken part in this debate; I think it was the last speech he made on a piece of legislation in this chamber. It was very appropriate that he did enter the debate and bring to bear his great wisdom, broad experience and deep compassion. One of the great privilieges in my public life has been the opportunity of serving under the hon. member for Halifax. We in this country sometimes foolishly talk about the ideology of right and left, which actually has no bearing upon Canadian public life at all but is an imported European term. In the connection, the values and the problems relating to the people of Canada the hon. gentleman was right in the moral sense. He was just, he was compassionate and concerned. I am immensely proud of what he said the other day. During the years that he has been here as our leader he has never forsaken the same maxim I repeated at the beginning of my remarks-that a government must care for those who most need care.
I note, too, that another member who engaged in the debate was a former premier of Saskatchewan, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas). He is a socialist; that is, if the NDP are still socialists. They do not talk much about that. He, too, has been a great humanitarian. He is a man who knows and cares about the problems of the poor, the dispossessed, the suffering, the infirm. I think the country should know that the two former premiers in this House spoke eloquently and with feeling on this particular measure. I endorse their views.
The hon. member who has just spoken was quite right in suggesting that this most reprehensible piece of legislation should be put in cold storage, or perhaps frozen forever, and that we should have consultation with the provinces in regard to this subject. The two major iniquities in this bill are on the side of compassion and care for people and, as my former leader said, care for confederation. You cannot build a strong country by knocking around the health services. You cannot build a healthy tomorrow by closing hospitals and forcing upon the provinces a diminution in medical care grants. You cannot build a healthy Canada if the word of the federal government given to the provinces is not respected or honoured.
I was in this House when medicare was launched. I remember very well the four-point formula that was put forward and what the spokesmen for the provinces said at that time. Many of them were reluctant to accept medicare. Some were upset, others disturbed. But in the end they had to accept, and did accept-and I believe they were right in accepting this for their people in the long run-the four-point program. Now, having gone through all that exercise, they hear that, unilaterally, the central government has changed the rules and has put upon each province a burden impossible to bear, while hurting the very people who can least stand an assault from a narrow-minded government in a belated binge of penny-pinching.
What is confederation but a continuing relationship of faith and understanding between constituent parties?
Medical Care Act
Every province entered under special arrangements and negotiations. Some of them were under the British North America Act and some were put there subsequently; but the whole basis of this continuing experiment was that a word was given as valid. An agreement once entered upon is changed by discussions, by negotiation and not by a fiat of the office of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. That is not the way to keep the country going. Although we love our country and are filled with hopes for its future, let us not think there is something inevitable or that this country can automatically sustain the fabric of confederation, or that it is not capable of being torn apart. It is frail fabric, confederation. It always has been and it has required wisdom, moderation, consideration and concern to hold the country together.
The most important element in holding this country together is, was, and has to be, the national government, the national institutions-the very things which are common to all Canadians. If you have bad faith at the centre of the institutions of the nation, and 4f you have unilateral declarations and sudden fiats from one of the partners of confederation, then not only the health of the people but the health of our society, of our political institutions, of our parliamentary democracy, of politics itself and of confederation are assaulted; and this country cannot stand that kind of assault.
I should think that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) would prove himself a big man if he could stand up some day-perhaps today-and say, "All of us are prone to error. I and my colleagues have made a mistake. We have reflected upon it, and we are going to withdraw the bill." He would find that in this opposition group, although we are much invigorated-that is why we have such fighting, young people speaking now-we are still understanding and agreeable. We will help him withdraw, we will turn over a new page, we will redirect him to the problems so that he may come out with something sensible. Perhaps the minister could then come forth with some careful consideration. He could talk to the ministers from all the provinces and assess with them the needs of the nation. He should remember that you do not break your word and keep the country strong. You do not harass, distress and beset the suffering and build a just society, a new society or a good society.
This is an outrageous piece of legislation. It is built upon shortsightedness, a regrettable tendency toward what I am afraid is showmanship, and a break in the economy in the very area that cannot be sustained. It is bad faith, and it is tearing at the vitals of confederation.
I think the minister has tried hard in his portfolio. He has sometimes been too autocratic both inside the House and outside. I do not think he is a foolish man. I think he wants to do a decent job. But he has been far too prone to foolish optimism. The book to which I referred, "A New Perspective on the Health of Canadians", is slick, nonsensical, stupid optimism of the worst kind. The suggestion that in this country we have so many doctors we do not need any more, and we are not going to let anyone else come in, is nonsensical.
There are thousands of Canadians who today are living miles and miles from medical services; old people fearful that in the middle of winter, and perhaps in the middle of

February 24, 1976
Medical Care Act
the night, they may want the services of a doctor. My good friend, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald)-from that prime province of the whole Dominion, Prince Edward Island-knows that there are people in that category, old people living in fear. Yet we read and hear that we have so many doctors we do not need any more. That, too, is an outrage.
It is also an outrage that as the years have gone by we have not provided for the training of more qualified medical people in this country. If we ever reach the stage-and we are a long way from it-where we have an abundance of doctors, there are, God knows, many parts of the world which could benefit from their services. Our medical schools should be enlarged and there should be more of them. We should be turning out more medical people. I have never been very attracted to the suggestion of these closed societies among certain professionals because they are, like all of us-or should be-devoted to the service of their fellow citizens rather than building closed shops.
I add my voice to those who condemn this bill, and that is a heavy word that I do not often use. I condemn it because it is wrong it terms of compassion, and I condemn it because it is dangerous to the unfolding and developing of confederation. There is no way that bad faith can be the foundation of good legislation. There is no way that aiming at the weaker elements of society, the people in need, can become just. This measure is wrong and improperly inspired, if I may use that word. It is wrong in detail, it is wrong in principle, and it is hurtful to confederation.
I make this appeal on behalf of the thousands of Canadians who need friends. It is tough enough to be sick, but it is harder when you read every day that it is going to be more and more difficult to get the kind of attention that might bring you through a debilitating illness back to that great glory of life, the feeling of good health. I say, also, that at a time when tensions within our country are very severe and the centrifugal forces are far too strong, it ill behooves the federal government to be acting in such a way toward the provinces in an area so sensitive to human need and so sensitive to the principle of confederation.


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate on Bill C-68 I think it appropriate that, as a layman in these matters, I should try to express the feelings of some of the very able and distinguished members of the medical profession in my own constituency of Medicine Hat and perhaps of their counterparts throughout the province of Alberta. This is what I propose to do in my contribution to this important debate.
First of all, let us go back to Monday, June 23, 1975, when the then minister of finance presented the budget speech in the House of Commons. The minister stated that in light of the existing inflationary environment, his government was committed to restraining public expenditure. One of the major expenditure restraint programs announced in that budget was related to the two main statutory programs in the health field, namely, hospital and medical care insurance. The minister defended his government's decision to introduce controls in respect of these programs by stating that the annual increase in their cost had, on average, run well ahead of the growth of the national

income and had increased 19.8 per cent over the previous year. The measures announced by the minister to control the increasing cost of health care have created a great deal of concern among the medical profession.
I propose to examine the measures designed to limit federal contributions to the provinces under the Medical Care Act and some of the potential implications of this program. In order to understand the government's program to limit federal contributions to the provinces under the Medical Care Act, it is necessary to have an understanding of the cost-sharing formula. The formula which is contained in the Medical Care Act basically calls for the government to contribute to each province half the average per capita cost of all insured services for all participating provinces, multiplied by the number of insured persons within the province. Under this formula, a major proportion of the total provincial medical care cost is provided by the federal government to those provinces in which the per capita cost of medical care is lower than the national average. The following quotation is taken directly from the minister's budget speech of last June:
A second measure aimed at more effective cost control involves the establishment of a ceiling on the yearly rise in the contributions the federal government makes to the provinces under the Medical Care Act. Since provincial administrations will need some time to adjust their planning, this ceiling will be made effective for 1976, and subsequent years. More specifically a ceiling will be placed on the per capita rate of growth of federal contributions to provinces. This ceiling will be 13 per cent in 1976-77, 10 V2 per cent in 1977-78, and 8V2 per cent in 1978-79, and subsequent years. The per capita approach means that varying rates of population growth between provinces, or from year to year will be automatically taken into account in total contributions to provinces.
The Medical Care Act operates under a fiscal year ending March 31. This means that the year April 1, 1975, to March 31, 1976, will be the base year upon which the ceiling for the federal contribution will be calculated. For example, if the average rate of per capita cost for medical care services is $100 in the 1975-76 fiscal year, the maximum average rate per capita cost upon which the federal government would compute payment to each province for 1976-77 would be $113.
There are two fundamental problems with the proposed federal controls as outlined in the budget speech of the minister. The proposed ceilings amount to price controls on physicians' services. No other sector of the economy had been subjected to wage or price controls at that time. Again referring to last June 23, 1975, the second major shortcoming is that the proposed price ceilings must make allowance for several variables which directly affect real physician income such as increases in utilization, increased number of physicians, overhead and inflation. Despite the lack of stability in these variables, the proposed ceilings appear to be inflexible.
Before examining the implications of the ceilings on federal contributions to Alberta, it is worth while to determine whether in fact control is justified. In his budget speech, the minister stated that the previous year federal contributions to the provinces in respect of the hospital and medical care insurance programs had to be increased 19.8 per cent over the year before. The average per capita medical care cost for the ten major provinces rose only 5.9 per cent from the fiscal year ended March 31, 1973, to the fiscal year ended March 31, 1974.
February 24, 1976

It can be shown that the annual increase in average per capita medicare costs for Canada from 1971 to 1974 averaged 6.9 per cent. From 1971 to 1974 the average annual increase in per capita GNP at market prices was 12.8 per cent. Furthermore, from June, 1971, to June, 1974, the Canadian consumer price index rose an average of 7.9 per cent annually, while average weekly wages and salaries rose 8.5 per cent annually. The increases in per capita medicare costs in Alberta have been substantially below those of Canada as a whole. From 1970 to 1974, the annual rate of increase in per capita medicare costs in Alberta averaged only 3.8 per cent. In the same period of time, per capita gross domestic product in Alberta rose 13.6 per cent annually. Further, from June, 1970, to June, 1974, the consumer price index for Edmonton and Calgary averaged an annual increase of 5.7 per cent, while average weekly wages and salaries in Alberta averaged an increase of 8.6 per cent annually.
I want to point out that the physicians of Alberta have demonstrated a great deal of responsibility in controlling increases in the cost of medicare. For example, in 1971 the per capita cost of medical care in Alberta was almost identical to the national average. By 1974, Alberta's per capita cost of medicare services was 12.6 per cent less than the national average. This has resulted in the federal government assuming a larger proportion of the total Alberta medicare costs. From 1971 to 1974, the percentage of total costs for insured services in Alberta, paid for by the federal government, increased from 48.6 per cent to 56.3 per cent because Alberta is operating at a lower cost.
Further, federal contributions, plus premiums, are almost sufficient to pay for the total cost of basic medical services. It is only when the costs of chiropractic, optomet-ric, podiatric, oral surgery and osteopathic services, as well as Alberta health care administrative costs are added, that the province of Alberta must contribute. The province of Alberta contributed $3.9 million in 1971, $8.7 million in 1972, $10 million in 1973, and $17.5 million in 1974.
Mr. Speaker, the foregoing suggests that per capita medicare costs in Canada, and especially in Alberta, have not been increasing at an unreasonable rate. Furthermore, the government of Alberta has not been required to subsidize the cost of medicare to any great extent. No one denies that total health care costs are increasing rapidly, but the responsibility for these large increases does not lie with medicare payments.
Now I should like to make some comments on the increases in these medicare payments. Legislation to impose the ceiling on federal contributions as outlined in the budget speech was drafted and received first reading in the House last July 8. Bill C-68 also contains the clause which excludes new insured services from the ceiling on federal cost-sharing. A new insured service is defined as- a health service prescribed after June 23,1975, by the minister pursuant to subsection 4(3) that was furnished pursuant to a medical care insurance plan of the province at a time during the first twelve months in which that health service was deemed by subsection 4(3) to be, in respect of that province, a service rendered by a medical practitioner that is medically required.
To examine the impact of Bill C-68 as it is currently written, we shall assume for the time being that the gov-
Medical Care Act
eminent of Alberta will not allow medicare payments to Alberta physicians to increase at a rate higher than the ceilings proposed by the federal government. I think this is a fair assumption. This would then amount to a global budgeting situation, with substantial declines in real physician income. There are several factors beyond the control of physicians which will reduce increases in average net physician income to a level far below that of the proposed ceilings. A real increase in total medicare payments to physicians should theoretically be an increase in income for providing the same number of equal medical services. Allowance must be made to pay for providing more medical services from the increase in total medicare payments as governed by the ceilings in Bill C-68. The demand for more medical services is a function of increased population and increased utilization. Another major factor in reducing average net physician income will be an increasing number of physicians sharing a limited pool of funds. Finally, rising costs of overhead will have to be paid for out of the increases as governed by Bill C-68.
To examine the combined impact of these factors upon average net physician income, taking into account the increases as proposed by Bill C-68, we shall first estimate what the future increases in the variables might be. We shall then utilize a hypothetical case to determine the proportion of the increases that the average Alberta physician would receive as increased net income. As mentioned previously, the demand for more medical services is a function of increased population and increased utilization. However, the federal government has indicated that the federal contribution to the provinces will be calculated on a per capita basis, which means that increased cost due to increasing population will not have to be accounted for within the ceilings proposed in Bill C-68.
However, no allowance has been made for increased utilization of medical services. Two major reasons for increasing utilization are that with reduced birth rates and longer life expectancy, there is a shift in the age distribution of the population toward the older segments who traditionally require more medical services. Since 1971, utilization in Alberta-measured by the total number of medical services per 1,000 persons-has increased at an average annual rate of about 2 per cent. Increases in average gross medicare payments to physicians will be considerably lower than the ceilings proposed under Bill C-68 because of increasing numbers of physicians sharing the pie. From 1964 to 1974, the number of Alberta physicians registered with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta averaged an annual increase of 5.1 per cent. From 1971 to 1974, registration with the college averaged a yearly increase of 3.7 per cent. In the same period of time, the number of physicians receiving payments from the AHCIC has increased an average of 4.3 per cent annually. It therefore seems reasonable to project that the average annual rate of increase in the number of physicians in Alberta will be approximately 4 per cent.
The Department of National Health and Welfare publication "Earnings of Physicians in Canada" reported that overhead consumed 37.4 per cent of gross professional earnings of Alberta physicians in 1972. This overhead percentage was equivalent to $16,620 of the average gross AHCIC payments to physicians in 1972. From 1972 to 1974, average gross AHCIC payments to physicians increased
11206

February 24, 1976
Medical Care Act
only 9 per cent, while overhead costs have risen substantially in the light of inflation. The major components of increasing total overhead included increasing cost of rent, medical supplies and the unprecedented increases in salaries of allied health personnel. For example, in 1975 registered nurses received effective salary increases of about 33 per cent, certified nursing aides received a 48 per cent increase, laboratory and X-ray technologists received average increases of 35 per cent, and clerical staff in hospitals received average increases of approximately 40 per cent.
In the light of inadequate increases in average gross AHCIC payments and rapidly increasing overhead costs since 1972, it is estimated that for the average Alberta physician overhead will consume 45 per cent of professional earnings in 1975. This would represent an average 12.5 per cent annual increase in actual overhead dollars from 1972 to 1975. For the purpose of illustration, it has been conservatively estimated that overhead dollars will increase 10 per cent annually from 1976 onward.
Let us assume that the government of Alberta will not increase the proportion of total medicare costs paid for from the coffers of the province. We shall also assume that the government of Alberta is well aware that increased utilization will result in an increase in the number of medical services of approximately 2 per cent annually. It follows that the largest increase to physicians that the Alberta government would be willing to negotiate would be the federal ceiling, less 2 per cent. In other words, the maximum increase for 1976-77 would be 11 per cent, 8.5 per cent for 1977-78, and 6.5 per cent for 1978-79 and subsequent years.
To illustrate the impact of these effective ceilings on net physician income, let us assume that total payments to 2,400 Alberta physicians for insured medical care services were $120 million in the 1975-76 base year. With the previously determined estimates for increasing numbers of physicians and increasing overhead, average net physician income will increase only 4.1 per cent in 1976-77 and will actually begin to decline in 1977-78 and subsequent years. By the 1977-78 fiscal year the moneys required to compensate for increased overhead and increasing numbers of physicians will exceed the total dollar increase in medicare payments. This, of course is the reason for declining net income from 1977-78 onward.
This decline in average net physician income will be further exacerbated by general inflation in the economy which will reduce real net physician income. The Economic Council of Canada, in its eleventh annual review, showed that the incidence of inflation is about the same for all families, regardless of their income level. From December, 1972, to December, 1974, the consumer price index for Edmonton and Calgary rose 21.3 per cent. The latest Statistics Canada figures show that the Canadian CPI rose 11.1 per cent from July, 1974, to July, 1975. If it is conservatively estimated that the consumer price index will increase 9 per cent annually to 1980, it can be calculated that average net physician income, expressed 1975-76 constant dollars, will decline 34.5 per cent by the 1979-80 fiscal year.

It can be shown that Bill C-68 does not adequately take into account such factors as increased population, utilization, number of physicians, overhead and inflation. If this bill is legislated, average net income in Alberta will decline substantially. This is obviously unacceptable to Alberta physicians as it can be illustrated that since the advent of medicare in Alberta the average real net income of the average physician has decreased almost 40 per cent. Alberta physicians require substantial increases in average gross income merely to regain the real net income received several years ago. I have demonstrated that there is no justification for the federal government imposing controls upon increases in medicare payments when the average annual rate of increase in per capita costs for Alberta has averaged only 3.8 per cent since 1970. A consequence of higher standards of medical care can be increased costs. If unreasonable cost controls are introduced, it is possible that health care standards could be adversely affected. Further, the physicians of Alberta may have no alternative but to look more to the patient in order to maintain income.
I think it is obvious that I cannot agree with the intent of this bill, and I certainly share the feelings which my colleague from Prince Edward Island expressed in his remarks just before mine. Surely we should at least set this bill aside until the new control and restraint policy which we are now endeavouring to put into effect has had a chance to operate.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I am rather sorry that the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Mac-quarrie) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) are not here. In the speech of the hon. member for Hillsborough this afternoon there were colourful adjectives. He said Bill C-68 was an outrage and a criminal injustice. He said that no rational wisdom should be imposed upon the poor and the infirm. I could not agree with him more, and I suggest that the hon. member send a copy of his speech to the minister of health of Ontario, because that is the very thing the minister of health of Ontario is doing by his actions. His actions are an outrage and an imposition on the poor and the infirm in Ontario. The hon. member also said it is necessary to have discussion and negotiation with regard to Bill C-68.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) rising on a point of order?


Mr. Yewchuk:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question at this point?


John Gilbert: When I have finished my speech I will be delighted to handle about 30 or 40 questions. That is how good I feel today. The hon. member for Hillsborough also wanted the Minister of National Health and Welfare to have discussion and negotiation with regard to Bill C-68. I ask the hon. member for Hillsborough what discussion and negotiation the Ontario minister of health had with regard to closing hospitals in Ontario. Did he have discussions with the municipalities, the workers in the hospitals, or with patients? Not for one minute. In fact, the Ontario minister of health marched across the province closing hospitals without any negotiation or discussion whatsoever. The hon. member wound up his speech by saying that

he would like the Minister of National Health and Welfare to say that he made a mistake and is prepared to correct this mistake by withdrawing the bill. Surely the hon. member for Hillsborough-
Mb'. Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order at this time to point out that the Ontario hospital closures are the direct result of federal Liberal policies.


John Gilbert: Is that not an admission by the medical critic of the Conservative party? He says that just because we in Ottawa make a mistake, the minister of health in Ontario should make a mistake. Surely it is the purpose of this discussion to persuade the Minister of National Health and Welfare not to make the mistake which the Ontario minister of health is presently making. The hon. member for Hillsborough says we should withdraw the bill because there has been a mistake with regard to it. There certainly has been a mistake in Ontario, and the health critic for the Conservative party and the hon. member for Hillsborough should send copies of their speeches to the Ontario minister of health and persuade him to stop this nonsense about closing hospitals in Ontario.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Gilbert: I really did not intend to participate in this debate, but when I read in the newspapers that a result of the closing of a hospital in Toronto is the laying off of 1,200 workers, that just indicates the impact of the action which the Ontario minister of health is taking. The Doctors' Hospital is, I am sure, in the riding of one of the Liberal members-probably the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) or perhaps the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia); I am not sure. But when I think of all the people in Ontario who depend on the Doctors' Hospital for care, hospitalization and medical services, and when I think of the Ontario minister of health, without a minute's notice, closing that hospital and affecting the patients in it, the people within the community, and causing the unemployment of 1,200 people, it is time I spoke up in this regard.


Mr. Brisco:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, in view of the fact that during this debate we are discussing hospital closures, I wonder if the hon. member would also give us the number of closures in the province of Saskatchewan. This is pertinent to the argument he is presenting.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I suggest we listen to the hon. member, because we might learn something.


John Gilbert: I think the answer has been provided to the hon. member. Not one hospital has been closed in Saskatchewan.


Robert Hylton Brisco: I can prove you are wrong.


John Gilbert: One can see that I have the picture in focus with regard to the Ontario government closing hospitals and the effect this will have on the people of Ontario. I am sorry the Minister of National Health and Welfare is not here this afternoon, but I notice his parliamentary secretary is here and I hope he will convey my message to the minister, because the minister really deserves the snowball treatment the Ontario minister of health received. When the Ontario minister of health went out and announced
Medical Care Act
what he was doing, he got a snowball reception. I challenge the Minister of National Health and Welfare to go out and tell the people of Canada what is contained in this bill and what the impact and effect of the bill will be. I am certain he will receive the same snowball treatment. He deserves snowball treatment. You will notice that after the Ontario minister of health had finished going round the province telling communities that their hospitals would be closed, he took a week's rest in the Caribbean. If the Minister of National Health and Welfare were to cross Canada and tell people the impact of this bill, he would need to take two or three weeks off in the Caribbean.


Mr. Nystrom:: Especially if he told the red Tories.


John Gilbert: The minister disappoints me. I thought he was a red Liberal. This past weekend we heard much about red Tories. I thought the minister was a red Liberal with progressive ideas. I thought he had compassion and reason. He made changes with regard to family allowances and pensions. The minister is not a red Liberal; he is a bureaucratic administrator who concentrates on efficiency and not on the development of socially valuable programs in Canada. The minister should introduce the guaranteed annual income, a socially valuable program, instead of delaying it. I suspect the government is delaying it until the next election: it will introduce the program in the next election campaign and say, "Are we not wonderful?"
What sort of man is the minister? He favours family allowances not being indexed. What a thing to do! I thought the minister was progressive and compassionate, yet he favours the elimination of family allowance indexing. Instead of doing something progressive, the minister introduced Bill C-68 which will impose strict limits on the cost-sharing of medical services and the extension of services related thereto. If he were truly progressive and compassionate he would introduce amendments to include dental care, pharmacare and physiotherapy.


Paul Yewchuk: And dental floss.


John Gilbert: He would introduce nutritional programs. He should not limit health services; he ought to expand them. When will he implement phase two of his plan for Canadian medical services, the plan set forth in a beautiful pamphlet dealing with national perspectives on health? We need more health care centres, paramedics, community clinics and financial help for hospital building programs. What has happened to these plans? Where are the amendments for including these programs in our health policies? If the minister were progressive and compassionate, he would include them. Where are the preventive medicine measures? In his opening speech the minister said we must change our life-style and environment. What has he done?


An hon. Member:: He's made it cheaper to die.


John Gilbert: What is the government doing to clean up our environment? How will the minister help our native peoples who suffer from mercury poisoning in Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and the Northwest Territories? He has done nothing to help them. What will the government do to help the people at Port Hope who are affected by residual
21419-17)4

February 24, 1976
Medical Care Act
radiation, radiation caused by the actions of a federal Crown corporation, Eldorado? What has the minister done to offset the financial losses the people of the area may have suffered? He has not done a thing.


An hon. Member:: It's cheaper to die.


John Gilbert: What has the minister done about lead contamination in Ontario, especially in Toronto? I notice two Toronto area Liberals in the far corner, the hon. member for Davenport and the hon. member from Scarborough. I ask them, what has the government done with regard to lead contamination in Toronto which has affected the lives of many, especially the young? The jobs of many are affected. What has the government done? I expect the minister would say, "This problem falls within provincial jurisdiction; therefore, we will do nothing about it."


Mr. Kaplan:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the hon. member permit an answer?


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I shall be delighted to hear the parliamentary secretary when I have finished. My speech is nearing its conclusion. I shall have something to say about the parliamentary secretary too. The Minister of National Health and Welfare thinks he looks big and brave because he saved Canadians from an American football intrusion. But he has done little to correct Canadian environmental difficulties, and this makes him look small.
Let me discuss other issues which the minister raised. What has the minister done to correct drug abuse in Canada? I include cigarettes among drugs, as well as heroin, marijuana and other drugs? I will tell you: he has done little, to his shame. The minister whom we thought was progressive and compassionate is hiding behind a jurisdictional wall, saying, "Probably all we can do is introduce some kind of educational program." Is that how we are to correct this difficulty? If little or nothing is done to correct drug abuse, it will be to the minister's everlasting shame and discredit.
What has the minister done with regard to child abuse? Not long ago the minister and the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) appeared before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs so ably chaired by the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson). Both ministers made wide-ranging speeches voicing their concern over child abuse. Both said it was necessary to correct child abuse. Last week the committee heard the testimony of two most competent witnesses on child abuse. One was Bryon Gero and the other was Professor Cyril Greenland of the Ontario Association of Professional Social Workers. They told the committee many of the problems concerning child abuse. Bryon Gero said that we need a commonly understood definition of child abuse, a central registry, provisions for mandatory reporting of child abuse and, more importantly, preventive programs. He told the committee what the Minister of National Health and Welfare ought to do if we are to correct child abuse. He said that we need demographic information concerning housing and social service needs-an excellent point.
He said that we need programs which will strengthen family life and improve social services and education- another excellent point. He said, further, that we need

detection programs involving schools, police, social workers, hospitals and doctors. We need to solve premarital problems, and need assessment services which will take into account family relationships. We need marriage and group counselling services and services to examine behavioural problems. He seems to say that we need, immediately, a guaranteed income plan and better day-care programs,
I hope that the parliamentary secretary, who is a member of the committee, will tell the minister what Bryon Gero told the committee and convey to the House how necessary it is to introduce the guaranteed annual income and more day-care centres if we are to eliminate child abuse.
We then had Professor Greenland, who indicated a research experience arising out of a program in which he studied 100 persons who were not guilty of violent crimes by reason of insanity, another 100 persons guilty and in penitentiaries for violent crimes, another 96 persons who were dangerous sexual offenders, and another 65 persons who committed murder followed by suicide. The common denominator that he found with regard to the study was that there was a severe deprivation in childhood for all these people in some of the basic cares, needs and protections that they required. He pointed out that there was a high degree of the passing on of tendencies with regard to these people who suffered severe deprivation in their childhood. He also pointed out that a great number of the cases occurred as a result of alcohol and drug abuse. I would underline that fact to the parliamentary secretary.
He also pointed out that even though there had been adequate warning in 50 per cent of the cases-in other words, from the mother or the person seeking help-there was a failure to deal with the person seeking help. He said there has not been a serious epidemic of child abuse, but if conditions prevail there is a possibility that there will be. He pointed out how much research and identification is needed, with regard to this problem, and the necessity of programs to deal with these people.
In the minds of many people throughout this country, child abuse is one area where the Minister of National Health and Welfare could make a great contribution toward lessening the impact of the problem. What does he do? I fear I know what he is going to do. He is going to say that this is within provincial jurisdiction, and the government will try their best to give a few pennies to research. Instead of stimulating the provinces to take action and supplying moneys to develop research and programs so that we can have prevention, the minister does little or nothing. This is what he has done so far.
I want to deal with what some of the Liberal members have said in their speeches, especially the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Rail-ton). I am sorry he is not here this afternoon. He replaces another Liberal member. I am sure all who knew Don Tolmie would say that without doubt he was a concerned and compassionate person. When I hear the remarks of the parliamentary secretary they send shivers down my spine. He said that the main unserviced areas in medical care are the frontiers. I take strong exception to that statement.
If the parliamentary secretary had heard what the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan) said
February 24, 1976

with regard to the problems in East Richmond, he would realize how necessary it is to expand medical and hospital services in the maritimes. I am sure that members from Newfoundland, Quebec, the prairie provinces, the north, and British Columbia can repeat the problems that they have with regard to the shortage of medical care. When the parliamentary secretary talks about a shortage on the frontiers, he is right. However, the frontiers are not only in the outlying areas; they are in the inlying areas in the main cities.
The hon. member for Spadina, who has a constituency fairly adjacent to mine, and the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Roberts), can tell you of the number of people who have related to us their problems with regard to medical and hospital care. There is not a shadow of doubt with regard to the shortage of medical hospital services in the city of Toronto. I am sure the same thing applies to other main cities across the province.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs compared Canadian medical services to United States medical services. He said that U.S. medical services are as good, if not better, than Canadian services. Any person who has experienced U.S. medical care services realizes that it is not difficult to beat or to better them. The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) set forth the problem of a civil servant who went to Florida at Christmas with his wife and children. His child became ill and he took the child to the hospital. The greeting he received at the hospital was that if he placed $1,500 to the deposit of that hospital, they would take care of the child. A person whom I know lives in Florida a few months of the year. I asked why he did not stay there permanently. He said he could not afford to become ill in Florida; he has to come back to Canada to protect himself and his family. It is passing strange that Senator Ted Kennedy would come to Canada, study our program, praise it and want to implement it as part of the Democratic party's campaign in the next election, yet the parliamentary secretary wants us to take the American experience and the American service.
I wish to deal for a few minutes with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Kaplan). He stated that 6.9 per cent of our gross national product goes to medicare, compared to 7.7 per cent in the United States. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, as a very reasonable and understanding person, what relationship our gross national product should have to medical services. None whatsoever. The test should be that every Canadian is entitled to full and adequate medical and hospital care. That is the test we should apply to education, pensions, housing and unemployment. Every person in Canada is entitled to employment, to decent housing, to decent medical services and to a decent pension. That should be the test. There should not be a relationship to the gross national product. I can see the parliamentary secretary shaking his head and asking, "Where are we going to get the money?" What is necessary is that we arrange our priorities to look after the basic needs of the people.
I was rather proud to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) last night on television when he dealt with the delegation from the chambers of commerce and read a few excerpts from their brief which said the government
Medical Care Act
should cut its spending in this area and that area. Nowhere in the brief was there any mention of cuts in the area of corporate welfare. The government, they argued, should cut its spending in housing and on social services but should not consider for one moment cutting down the billions the corporations received.
It would be fair to ask what the NDP would do with regard to medicare. Look at our record. We stand tall and proud when we think of the medical services we have provided in Canada. Let me name them. In 1947, the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) introduced hospitalization insurance in Saskatchewan. In 1962 he introduced the medicare program in Saskatchewan. The NDP has introduced medicare programs in Manitoba and in British Columbia, of which we are justly proud. We have added dental and pharmacare and we have developed community clinics and out-patient facilities which the people of those provinces appreciate and wish to protect.
Look at the Tory record. I give them credit for closing the loophole in 1958 in the Liberal legislation which stated that hospitalization programs would be constituted on a national scale when a majority of the provinces, representing a majority of the population, consented. I give the Tories credit for closing that loophole. I give them credit, too, for establishing a royal commission under the able leadership of Mr. Justice Emmett Hall. That commission produced one of the best reports on health care we have ever seen. Also, I must, reluctantly, give credit to the Liberal government under the late Lester Pearson in 1968 for finally introducing medicare insurance across the country. But when one comes to think of it, Mackenzie King said in 1919 that part of the Liberal program would be to institute hospital medical care. But it took from 1919 to 1968 to put that program into operation.
I notice that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) is here with us. It would be fair for me to say that he was the minister responsible for bringing forward that legislation, and for doing so he deserves the gratitude of all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Gilbert: He is a man of concern and conviction. It is unfortunate that he is in the wrong party, but whether he is in the Liberal party or in the NDP-


An hon. Member:: Perhaps he is a red Tory.


John Gilbert: -at least he is a concerned individual. We have another-Senator Croll in the other House. If I ever heard of a Jeremiah, there he is, that senator. When he heard about Bill C-68, his reaction was immediate. He said, "No, no; a thousand times no." He said the bill was wrong, wrong, wrong.


Robert Hylton Brisco: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. The statement was made by myself that there had been closures of hospitals in Saskatchewan-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Members on my left cannot stand the truth. They do not want to know the facts.

February 24, 1976
Medical Care Act


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: If the hon. member will come to his point of order, we will listen.


Robert Hylton Brisco: It has been stated that no hospitals in Saskatchewan have been closed. The figures are these-


An hon. Member:: That is not a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: That is a matter of debate, not a point of order.


John Gilbert: Madam Speaker, I have another hour and forty minutes to go. The hon. member's intervention has taken up some of my valuable time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Gilbert: In his opening remarks, the minister said that Canada had one of the finest health systems in the world. We in the NDP will make it the finest health system in the world. Countries such as the United Kingdom, the Scandinavian countries, Holland, New Zealand, West Germany and Israel have programs which are far superior to those we have in Canada. Yet Canada is far richer than the United Kingdom and the other countries I have mentioned. It should be a matter of shame to us that we do not have the finest programs. We in the NDP would act in co-operation with the provinces, not unilaterally. We would not behave as the minister of health has done in Ontario, or as the federal minister has acted.
Before I go any further, and to protect myself, I move at this point, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Mel-ville (Mr. Nystrom):
That Bill C-68 be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months' hence.
I have stated that we in the NDP would act in a co-operative manner rather than unilaterally. We have noted the action taken by the federal government and by the government of Ontario-


Mr. Dinsdale:: And by the Saskatchewan government.


John Gilbert: I hope the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) makes a speech. He looks up and gives me a pleasant smile, but I do not know whether he is with me or against me. All of us know that the provinces are now spending $1.5 billion on extra care services which are not included in the 50-50 program. We in the NDP would certainly arrange our priorities to make sure that any national medicare program would include the services which are now being paid for by the provinces. We would set our priorities in such a way as to make this possible. Can you imagine the Ontario minister of health travelling across the province closing hospitals and creating unemployment to save $50 million? Surely the government of Ontario could cut $50 million from its highways budget without the impact being felt. We in this parliament could trim the defence program. Can you imagine spending $900 million on new planes, which we are hoping to get from Lockheed, and at the same time cutting down the money devoted to hospital services?
Finally, we in the NDP would strive for efficiency by developing community clinics and alternate care facilities, because it is too expensive to keep some people in hospi-

tals. We would develop home nursing. We would develop pharmacare to reduce costs. It is very important to control costs.
What worries me and the people of this country is that the control the government is imposing is not really control but a mere shifting of the burden to people who cannot pay. When I hear some hon. members talk of the imposition of deterrent fees I realize that they do not have an appreciation of what deterrent fees mean or what they will do to poor people. All that deterrent fees will do is deter people who require services and cannot pay for them, from attempting to get them. Finally, Madam Speaker, I hope that we can establish a partnership on a 50-50 basis to cost-share all the required services, so all Canadians are healthier and happier people.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Before putting the hon. member's amendment to the House, may I inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight pursuant to Standing Order 40 are as follows: the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz)-Citizenship-Request that vacancies in Toronto citizenship courts be filled-Government position; the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall)-Transport-Possible discussions on use of Manhattan to move oil through northern waters; the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert)-Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Alleged inadequacy of French language coverage of Conservative convention.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-68, to amend the Medical Care Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It has been moved by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom):
That Bill C-68 be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months' hence.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Madam Speaker, is it now appropriate for me, in addressing the Chair, to ask whether the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) would permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. We would need unanimous consent, since the hon. member's time has expired. Is it so agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Would the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) allow a question?


John Gilbert: Certainly.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Madam Speaker, my question to the hon. member for Broadview is with reference to his remarks concerning the number of hospitals that have been closed in Saskatchewan. Would the hon. member be prepared to accept the figures of Statistics Canada, which indicate that in 1972 one hospital was closed in Saskatchewan and that in 1973 three hospitals were closed in Saskatchewan? Would he be prepared to accept the premise that in all likelihood Statistics Canada has not been able to compile the number of hospitals closed in Saskatchewan in 1975?


John Gilbert: Madam Speaker, I would have thought the hon. member would have given some body and substance to his question by following it up with the reasons for these closings. I would speculate that one of the reasons is that they have developed more community clinics. It may be that there has been a shift in population from the country to the cities. I want the reason for the closings, not the mere fact that there have been closings.
What I wanted to stress was that in Ontario, where we need medical services, the Ontario minister of health deliberately closed hospitals. That is what struck me so forcibly. He closed them without even consulting the hospitals-one of the most dictatorial acts I have ever heard of. Yet the health critic for the Conservative party says, "The reason we closed them in Ontario was that the federal government brought forth Bill C-68". Madam Speaker, what an excuse! I hope that the next time the hon. member asks a question he will give it a little more strength and body by stating the reasons the hospitals were closed. I am doubly sure they were not closed because of a shortage of medical and hospital services. Rather, I suspect they were closed because there was a surplus.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Am I allowed to ask a last question? [English]


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member's time has expired, so it can only be done with unanimous consent. Is it so agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Would the hon. member for Broadview allow another question?


John Gilbert: Madam Speaker, I did not realize I was so popular. I would be delighted.
Medical Care Act


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, are we to assume from the hon. member's devastating attack on the policies of the Conservative government of Ontario that the NDP at Queen's Park will seek to bring down the Conservative government at the earliest opportunity?


John Gilbert: Madam Speaker, did you ever hear such a question put by such a person? I would have thought that he would have told us what the leader of the Liberal party of Ontario was going to do. It is obvious what he is going to do; he is going to vote with the Conservative party.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I am afraid the question and the answer are outside the motion.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Madam Speaker, for one who has been in the House of Commons a number of years this is rather a sad occasion-I am taking my handkerchief out already. To see a once vigorous and creative government coasting to a conclusion in this way, even for members of the opposition brings a certain sense of sadness. I have been involved in all the debates giving rise to the excellent medicare program that we now have in Canada. The spirit of rising expectations moved us forward in 1958 when the then Conservative government-in this regard I appreciate the complimentary words of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert)-brought in the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. This was a great breakthrough in medical care for Canadians on a universal basis.
I think everyone will admit that it is the cost of hospitalization that breaks the financial back of families. Anyone who has had chronic illness in their family knows that hospital bills can leap forward to $25,000, $50,000, even to $75,000; and no family, regardless of its means, can stand financial burdens of that kind. We then came to 1968 when, based on the excellent report of Mr. Justice Emmett Hall, the Medical Care Act was passed by the Pearson government.
Now we seem to be marching backwards. When the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) was leader of the opposition, he put the situation in very nice perspective, using the proper words, when he said that the government was busy drowning its own brainchildren. This is yet another example. The official opposition has just been reinvigorated by the election of a new, young and energetic leader, and I am hoping that this dramatic transformation in the political affairs of the nation will reverse the trend in public affairs that has become all too obvious in recent years.
Just to quote the spirit that prevails in government ranks as expressed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) as recently as 1974 when he presented his white paper on medicare in Canada, as recorded at page 5 of the report he said:
Good health is the bedrock on which social progress is built. A nation of healthy people can do those things that make life worth while, as the level of health increases so does the potential for happiness.
Obviously, Bill C-68 is, as hon. members who have spoken have described it, a thoroughly bad bill and will certainly do nothing to increase the potential for happiness of the Canadian people. The Secretary of State for Exter-

February 24, 1976
Medical Care Act
nal Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), who is in the House today, made many significant and optimistic statements in respect of health care in Canada some years ago when we were waiting for contemplated action on the Hall report. He said:
Health is not a privilege tied to the state of one's bank account, but rather a basic right which should be open to all.
I trust that the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who is busy in conversation, has not forgotten those words. Hopefully, he will take part in this debate to reinforce the spirit of enthusiasm and creativity regarding health services expressed in those remarks which he made some ten years ago.
We have all been proud of the fact that Canada has a fine and outstanding medicare program. Indeed, when Canadians tended to become slightly hyperbolic we used to say it was the finest medicare program in the world. We are now running into problems of higher and rising costs. This was to be expected, as outlined when we took part in the debate back in 1968. The hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) predicted this would be the case unless priorities were stressed, unless the preventive aspect of health care were stressed and unless the second stage, as it was described by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), were adopted. He said the passing of the hospital diagnostic act and the approval of the medicare act was only the beginning, and that these would do nothing to deal with the real problems of medicare and health in the nation other than to provide an adequate basis of financial support. The second and inevitable stage, with which we have really never come to grips, was the organization of a program of education and prevention that would provide the best possible medical services at the least possible cost.
This government, which has lost its zeal for the just society, has lost its momentum and is now coasting downhill to an inevitable conclusion. It has lost its vision and has come up with a simplistic solution. It has decided that putting an arbitrary ceiling on federal contributions will solve all the problems of the medicare program. This is as simplistic as the government's approach to inflation which was once described as the major attack of the government in wrestling inflation to the ground. The bill is very brief, consisting only of three pages. Its very brevity indicates that a simplistic solution has been applied to what is an extremely complex problem. To put the matter in proper perspective, perhaps we should look back on how we came to have the outstanding health care program that is Canada's resulting from action in the 1950s and 1960s.
At the time the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act was passed in 1958 there was a great and growing need for this basic hospital care program. There was agitation for a follow up with some sort of medicare financial protection program. Based on the hospital insurance act, some provinces seized the initiative and moved into this further area of development. Saskatchewan, with a great and noisy debate, led the way. Manitoba chose the road of voluntary health insurance, as did Ontario.
I remember, at the time the Government of Canada was insisting that every province conform to the compulsory program, it was proposing there was considerable resistance on the part of the province of Manitoba because it had
[Mr. Dinsdale.j
a very successful and broad coverage under a voluntary program operated by the physicians of Manitoba. At the federal government's insistence, Manitoba was forcefully brought into line with the federal compulsory program. This has been dealt with by several speakers as the beginning of the federal invasion into the area of provincial prerogatives in respect of health and welfare. This led to the statement of the then minister of finance in the province of Ontario, the Hon. Charles MacNaughton, who said, "We have started down the slippery slope of fiscal irresponsibility, with the result that we are now faced with a further arbitrary and almost bewildering invasion of the prerogatives of provincial jurisdiction."
No wonder provincial governments of all stripes, and without exception, reacted with indignation and bewilderment when the program was first announced in the budget last June. Let me quote the immediate response of the minister of health and social development from my own province of Manitoba. He said this in a telegram of June 25, 1975:
Your government's decision to proceed with major changes on a unilateral basis is a serious disappointment to our province and, I assume, to most others ... Not only does the decision represent an apparent breach of our earlier understanding ... (in January)
Let me interpolate by saying the government is still confused in this time of wrestling with inflation. According to the statement of the minister of health for Manitoba, it reversed itself from decisions and agreements that had been reached at the earlier conference in January. Of course, this is not the only reversal of the government. It reversed itself 180 degrees on prices and incomes policy without any warning other than the resignation of the then minister of finance. His resignation must have been based on his disagreement with this zig-zagging approach of the Government of Canada. Let me resume the quotation as follows:
Not only does the decision represent an apparent breach of our earlier understanding (in January) but also, and more importantly, it suggests that your government has every intention of implementing legislative changes which will cause the primary financial reponsibility for the future reform of health care and for the maintenance of existing service standards to be borne by the provincial governments and their taxpayers ... It is obvious that such a decision would represent a significant threat to our national health standards ... standards based on a system which the federal government itself initiated.
That was on June 25 last year, from the province of Manitoba. That was followed by the statement of the province of Ontario, at the Victoria conference which was mentioned this afternoon by the hon. member for Broadview.
It was said they have very much to lose by this change in federal government policy because a heavy financial burden will fall upon them. The hon. member for Broadview attempted to severely castigate the province of Ontario in its attempt to deal with the financial problems that are already beginning to be felt. The minister of health for Manitoba, speaking at the Victoria conference that had been convened at the request of the government of Ontario, said:
I think they (provincial premiers) will want to know what justification the federal government has for apparently choosing to make these essential programs one of the main targets of its campaign against
February 24, 1976

inflation-even though it is obvious that the benefits these programs provide in terms of real income protection are among the most important safeguards we have against inflation for the low and middle income people in this country-and especially for the pensioners, the people who probably have been hurt worst by Ottawa's failure to bring rising prices under control.
Quebec also sent a telegram on June 25. There was an immediate response from right across the country which is being re-echoed by all speakers in the House at the present time. The minister of social affairs, the Hon. Claude E. Forget, of the Quebec Government sent a telegram in the following words:
First of all, I deplore the unilateral ceiling put on medical insurance by the federal government without warning-
There was absolutely no consultation. It was an arbitrary and a unilateral invasion of the provincial field. The quotation continues:
One must make the distinction between an economic measure favouring the Quebec taxpayer and an economic measure destined to advantage nothing but the federal treasury-the statement by (your) government belongs to this second category.
The federal government's hesitation in assuming its part of the financing of health services, in view of the present acts and agreements, shows once again how right Quebec is in favouring a fiscal transfer (of tax points) that would make the total financing responsibility coincide with the provinces complete responsibility in administering these services.
I could go on to quote from other statements by provincial ministers at the Victoria conference. Their objection and protest was universal, without exception, including the Liberal provincial administration. The Hon. Bill Mac-Eachen minister of public health, at the Victoria conference said:
I share a good deal of the concern of my colleagues from other provinces on the announcements made by the Hon. John Turner-
If I might interpolate again, now that the bill is before us, I am sure he would be even more forthright in his protestations. So we have a government which consistently over the last eight years has followed the divisive course of confrontation rather than co-operative federalism. It has continued on this course which is dangerous to national unity in-and I go back to the statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs-the most important area of political health of the nation, by arbitrarily moving in this way.
We will have a return to the old, basic problem of confederation in which the rich provinces will be able to opt out because of their financial resources, while the poor provinces will have to reduce the level of their medical services. The regional disparities will be exacerbated. This is one of the main reasons the government, in introducing the universality of the program in 1968, said that in some provinces the people were poorly served because they did not have adequate financial resources, whereas in the well-to-do provinces they had adequate medical service. This bill will take us backward into that unhappy situation of regional disparity.
There has been some attempt to blame the doctors for the rising cost of health care. This point has been made before, but I should like to touch briefly on it today. It has been mentioned during the debate as the main problem in respect of the rising cost of medical care. I shall in a moment be putting forward some suggestions for solutions
Medical Care Act
in this regard. I wish now to come to the defence of the medical profession in Canada, because I think we are well served by our medical doctors and the people in the paramedical services.
I bring this particular point into the debate because of the difficulty that has been experienced in Manitoba in respect of the income of doctors in the past two months. There was a doctors' strike in my city of Brandon. For the first time, a professional group, the medical profession, paraded-with sandwich-boards-in front of the provincial hospital in that city. We were close to having another withdrawal of service, as the doctors were negotiating with the province of Manitoba for fair consideration of their salary position. The government started to blame the doctors for the inflationary costs in respect of medicine.
Let me put some figures on the record. If we say that the average income of a doctor is $50,000 per annum-and this is not excessive, in light of the salaries paid senior civil servants, and perhaps the attitude of the government in this regard is responsible for the inflationary pressure of salary demands among professionals-and there are some
36,000	physicians in Canada, the national gross income of physicians is approximately $1.17 billion. This means that each doctor would pay approximately $9,600 in federal taxes. This would represent a total of $346.5 million. If we look at the total of the federal transfer payments to the provinces in respect of medicare in 1974, we will find that the income tax paid by doctors amounted to 51 per cent of the total federal payment to the provincial governments.
The obvious attempt to place responsibility on the medical profession is a devious and irresponsible act on the part of the government. This problem did not come upon us suddenly: governments at the federal and provincial level have been wrestling with it for some time. The former minister of health, the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), initiated a task force on the cost of health services. That task force came up with three conclusions: one, that we could deal with it by reducing the standard of medical care-which we do not want to do in Canada-or we could increase taxes. Goodness knows, that has been going on in any event and we now are to have a further increase of 18 per cent in federal fiscal expenditures, which indicates that we are off into the stratosphere of financial irresponsibility. No wonder the Auditor General, in his report last year, said that federal financing is out of control completely. This is being confirmed as the committee dealing with the Auditor General's report deals with some of the examples of an irresponsible financial policy on the part of the federal government. Taxes have been raised and still they are not enough to meet the rising cost of government.
The third was the positive approach which has not been tried and which is regarded as the second stage of the health program in Canada. Ways and means must be found to keep down costs, and this is the point that I would like to deal with for a few moments before I conclude my remarks. There must be an initiative on the part of the federal government in achieving ways and means to keep down the costs, and there must be co-ordination among the provinces. Only the federal government is able to deal with this program on the basis of co-operative federalism, rather
11214

February 24, 1976
Medical Care Act
than confrontationist federalism. It is not good enough to put arbitrary ceilings on fiscal contributions to change the 50-50 formula which lured unsuspecting provincial governments into the program back in 1968. It is not good enough merely to dump the program on the provinces and tell them they have to solve it. This is precisely what Bill C-68 does.
First, I should like to deal with hospital care because it has been the worst offender. There are various ways of cutting the costs of hospital care which have never been implemented by any federal or provincial government up to the present time. We must have standards of hospital admission; this is now recognized by people in the health field. In fact, the Ontario government is busy setting up agencies throughout Ontario which would be able to deal with the problem of establishing standards for hospital admission. Ontario, rather than being criticized, should be complimented. I am sorry the hon. member for Broadview is not here, because they have pioneered in so many areas of health care in Canada that they should be receiving plaudits, not brick-bats, today.
The second area where costs should be cut is the length of bed occupancy. There is a great reluctance by patients to leave hospital once they have been able to obtain a bed, and many people in Canada have to wait weeks and even months to obtain a bed, particularly a surgical bed. Modern surgery does not agree to support the tendency present in all illness toward the invalid's complex, but prefers to get them moving and up and about as quickly as possible. So the length of bed occupancy must be taken into consideration.
The third item that could be dealt with in reducing the cost of hospital care is a review of the comprehensiveness of the medical care program. For example, should cosmetic surgery be covered under medicare? Should people who want their face lifted, for example, Madam Speaker, in order to improve their good looks, be covered under medicare? Yet this can be covered under the terms of reference as the program exists at present.
We have not begun to explore the possible savings under the home-visiting care plan. As a matter of fact, the patient recovers much more rapidly during the convalescent period in a happy home environment than he does in the sterile atmosphere of some of our hospitals. Even though the nurses are pretty, I am sure patients would find a much happier atmosphere in the home under a home-visiting care plan. Then we should do something about the provision of less costly convalescent beds. There is no necessity, during the convalescent period, to have all the costly resources of a modern hospital available. The convalescent period is merely biding one's time until he or she is able to return home and to their place of business and occupation.
Institutional care is most costly. I have been concerning myself with this matter with respect to the severely disabled and the chronically ill. I am the chairman of the Canadian Council for the Disabled which is engaged in a positive and constructive program of providing technical aids, adequate accommodation, transportation and accessibility to public buildings so that the severely disabled and the chronically ill can be assisted, some of them even to find useful and remunerative occupations. Certainly the chronically ill should be cared for in their own homes if

they have the support of the home-visiting care service and some of the marvellous technical aids that are now available.
We should look at the increasing cost of diagnostic services. Another incomprehensible approach which the government is taking to the rising cost of health care is their cut-backs in funds for medical research. This is one area where the problems of major illnesses could be resolved. If it were not for funds accumulated from private contributions, the whole program of cancer research would be severely hobbled. The same with heart disease. This is Heart Fund Week, if I am correct, and hundreds of thousands of dollars will be raised in order to come up with a solution for the rising cost of heart disease.
Every year, 10,000 males between the age of 40 and 60 are cut off in the prime of life by reason of coronary heart disease. I almost joined the ranks myself a few months ago, so I know whereof I speak. This is a cost to the economy of Canada which is astronomical, and it is one of the major reasons for the uncontrollable rising costs of health care in this country. Yet the government is cutting back on its research grants.
Here is another interesting situation. Our whole lifestyle, instead of contributing to a sound and healthy mind and body is based upon the pursuit of affluence which negates the best rules and regulations in health care. As someone who has gone through heart surgery and has to follow a very rigid diet, I am astonished to find that it is almost impossible to follow the required diet in restaurants. I was glad to hear the president of the Canadian Restaurant Association recently criticizing the restaurants of Canada for their failure to provide a diet which would support the urgent demand for better health care through a more common sense life-style for Canadians.
We have the problem of drug abuse and the problem of alcohol abuse which is one of the major areas of illness in Canada. The Minister of National Health and Welfare has made noises about doing something about the rising incidence of alcoholism which is now causing much concern in the province of Ontario and other provinces as well where they hope to lower the legal age for the consumption of alcohol from 21 years of age to 18.
The Health League of Canada is a voluntary organization which has been headed by that enthusiastic crusader for many years-ever since I came into the House of Commons-Dr. Gordon Bates. We used to have an active branch of this league in the House of Commons. It was supported by some of our MD colleagues; but we have not been as active in recent years as we should have been. However, this is the sort of positive approach we should be taking to bring down the rising costs of medicare and hospital care by positive preventive programs rather than by being content with merely providing a financial support system which was the first and urgent requirement of adequate health care. But now we must move to the second stage, and that is to implement programs which will cut down escalating costs.
In concluding, I should perhaps mention some more positive ideas for the government in its state of somnambulance these days. It does not seem to be able to come up
February 24, 1976

with very many constructive and creative ideas, so perhaps we can feed a few to it. The government should consider the motion which has been moved by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) for a six months' hoist. Perhaps that recommendation will be accepted. Certainly, the government should accept the recommendation which has been put forward by many speakers of the official opposition that something more positive and constructive must be implemented rather than merely shoving the blame and the responsibility on the provinces.
Here is one idea: recognizing the importance of financial control of the delivery of health services, it is proposed that a new financial partnership relationship with the provinces, in which the responsibility to manage and effectively to control these costs would be turned over to the provinces, where it belongs. Imperative to this policy decision will be an appropriate transfer of fiscal responsibilities through negotiated appropriate tax point transfers. At the same time, the provinces should allow constructive, co-ordinated entry by the Government of Canada into affairs of major concern on national health problems. I admit that the only way you can get an idea of this kind to operate is to have close co-operation and consultation, which has been the practice up until recent months in Canada.
A second proposal: for the serious Canadian health problems of mental health and drug and alcohol abuse it is proposed that a working partnership with the provinces and the professional agencies should be set up so we can quickly come to grips with these problems which are growing apace the longer we fail to deal with them. Third, with provincial acceptance and support, the Government of Canada should launch a new, all-encompassing research program under which biological and medical research, particularly in the areas of cancer and heart disease, would be intensified. As I have already indicated, instead of moving forward the government is moving backward in this regard.
Fourth, we must recognize that much research work must be done in the neglected areas of life-style and environmental health which contribute substantially to unacceptable disease levels. It would be my expectation that a national health research institute would represent a significant, well-balanced approach toward resolution of this problem. A fifth proposal would be that the federal government develop programs of prevention or education to alter the poor Canadian life-style habits as they contribute to the evolution of tragic and often fatal disease processes. In some cases, legislative intervention and action are requested to enhance healthy life-style habits. We have done this with regard to smoking. We hesitate to do it with regard to alcohol even though the minister has threatened to do so. I wish he would become active rather than merely speaking about the problem.
Sixth, governmental responsibility is supreme in the field of environmental factors affecting health. In the discussion of environmental health, specific courses of action should be taken by the government. Seventh, it is proposed that more appropriate participation by Canadian consumers in the future evolution of health policy be made by making public representation mandatory in a national institute for mental health and alcohol and drug abuse.
Medical Care Act
The voluntary Health League of Canada has been doing a marvellous task with its limited resources. Now the government must give support.
Finally, as I said at the opening of my remarks, this is a sad and unhappy debate. There is much unhappiness and uncertainty in the country because of the failure of this government to provide the necessary responsible and creative leadership. There is an old proverb which says that a merry heart doeth good like medicine. I think the best thing that could happen to this country would be a change of government so that Canadians could have a little bit of happiness for a change, and the health of Canadians would improve as a result.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) who made many very constructive suggestions about how we could improve our health care, I sincerely hope that many of these suggestions are taken seriously by the government and considered carefully. I also listened to the speech of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert). I recognize his concern and take note of the motion he moved to give the bill a six-month hoist in order that the provinces can look into this matter more thoroughly. At the outset of my remarks with regard to Bill C-68 I should like to quote from the minister's preface to the book, "A New Perspective on the Health of Canadians", as follows:
Good health is the bedrock on which social progress is built. A nation of healthy people can do those things that make life worth while, as the level of health increases so does the potential for happiness.
I am sure few people would dispute the advantages to be gained by encouraging individuals to pursue activities aimed at reducing health hazards and increasing health awareness among all Canadians. Preventive measures must be strengthened and people urged to become more health conscious and to assume more responsibility for their own physical well-being.
This is an issue which has always been of great concern to me, and as a relatively new member of parliament, in November of 1973 I moved a motion that in the opinion of the House the government should give consideration to the sponsorship and financing of a national recreation policy, in conjunction with the provinces and municipalities, to the allocation of responsibilities for recreational programming, to the determination of land use and to the encouragement of all aspects of recreational development by local citizens under permanent, federally-assisted programs. You can appreciate my pleasure when the government introduced its working document.
The government should provide us with health care. It is under an obligation, to the citizens of this country, to introduce programs and facilities which will make people aware of the detrimental effects on health of lack of exercise, improper diet, the consumption of excessive amounts of alcohol, and the smoking of cigarettes. I emphasize that all this should come under one comprehensive program and not under haphazard programs, as is the case at present. Present programs lead to much duplication of work in certain areas.
21419-18V2

February 24, 1976
Medical Care Act
It seems paradoxical that this bill should have been introduced at the present time, a bill that will have the potential for doing irreparable, major damage to the quality of medical care and Canada's medical insurance program, particularly in have-not provinces which do not operate with large budgets. Surely a program promoting increased health awareness should work in conjunction with a cohesive, beneficial medical insurance scheme. Preventive measures are much desired, and undoubtedly in the long run will serve to decrease the cost of health services. But we must also ensure that comprehensive, high quality services will continue to be available to all eligible residents of Canada.
I emphasize the point made by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk). It is totally illogical and unreasonable to freeze the Medical Research Council program. The hon. member for Brandon-Souris also mentioned this. Only with increased research and study of health problems and solutions thereto can the over-all health standard of all citizens be raised.
Canada's medical system has a fine reputation in the world. We have every right to be proud of a plan which has worked well, proved responsive, and demonstrated that it can work to the advantage of all citizens. Now it seems that the primary object of the program, the provision of health care to all Canadians, is to be sacrificed and tailored to financial exigencies of the moment rather than to medical care requirements. This policy naturally poses a major threat to the health of all Canadians.
Of utmost importance is the fact that the government has made a totally arbitrary, unilateral decision to impose budgetary ceilings on health care expenditures. The reaction of the provinces criticizing the government for its inflexibility, unilateral action, and arbitrariness in this matter is real and well founded. The need to reduce costs and control spending during this period of high inflation is not to be questioned. On the other hand the lack of prior consultation with provinces, in an effort to bring about economies in health care, ought to be questioned.
A unilateral decision was made by the federal government, contrary to the recommendations of the 1969 task force report, which suggested that consultation should take place between provincial and federal levels of government before any monetary changes in the program are made or even considered. In addition we must remember that the entire present day medical health system was forced down the throats of the provinces against their wishes. Apparently the federal government wants to opt out, to limit its contribution to cost-sharing. Its action leaves many provinces out on a limb. Small wonder the provinces are bewildered, indignant, and unanimous in opposing this legislation.
One of the main reasons for the introduction of Bill C-68 is that the government says that the cost of maintaining the present system is becoming too great. The costs are becoming unwieldy. In the budget speech of last June the then minister of finance maintained that the cost of health care had risen 20 per cent over the last year. In essence that statement was correct, but the minister neglected to mention that most of the increase was the direct result of escalating expenditures in hospital, not medical, care. In the last two years for which figures are fully available,

1972-73 and 1973-74, medical costs rose by 9.2 per cent and 7.2 per cent respectively. As well, medical care costs have decreased as a proportion of gross national expenditure. They constitute a smaller percentage of gross national product. The obvious question is: why has the federal government arbitrarily established spending ceilings on a program which has not been plagued with the sort of runaway cost increases evident in other federally-sponsored projects?
The government argues that in view of the past record of the somewhat slow increase in medical costs, the proposed ceiling is really no ceiling at all. Although expenditures appear to be under relative control the possibility still exists that there could be a rapid upturn in the capital outlay required to maintain our health standards. Many provinces claim that they need a catch-up period in order to bring their regional standards up to national levels. Such being the case, a marked increase in medical care expenditures would become evident.
The bill does not ensure economies in medical care, the very purpose for which the government imposed the ceilings. Provinces may wish to improve their health services, and doctors may demand higher salaries. As others have said, doctors are paid no more than many civil servants. In the event that either of the two situations alluded to should occur, the provinces would bear the burden of the additional capital outlay. Necessarily, premium rates will increase, or provincial revenues will have to be depleted. The third possibility is that if the provinces cannot meet this budgetary constraint, medical services will have to be reduced.
Bill C-68 may well endanger the quality and availability of medical care for Canadians. Medical care may be rationed and the increased ceilings may inhibit if not prohibit the introduction of new medical procedures and render it impossible for them to be made accessible to many individuals who would benefit greatly from them.
Recently on a trip to Calgary I visited a hospital auxiliary unit-I think that is the correct term-and was shown a very impressive piece of equipment which the unit had acquired. The people of the locality had raised money for the Foothills Hospital. Actually I was surprised to learn how many people were involved in raising money for the project. They raised money for a machine which neither the federal nor provincial governments could afford to buy for the hospital, a machine which, using a computer, will be able to detect aneurisms. It was an expensive machine, which the people bought through their own efforts.
What will the bill do to the have not provinces? The effect will be particularly detrimental to such provinces whose less developed health care programs have truly benefited from the federal-provincial cost-sharing formula.
We condone improved health care cost efficiency and the control of health care cost escalation. Positive steps should and must be taken. It is time for federal government initiative in health reform, but this legislation as it now stands offers no reform at all. It merely passes the buck, as it were, to the provinces without offering anything concrete in return.
February 24, 1976

Instead of imposing statutory ceilings the government should establish them by regulation which would allow an annual examination and revision, which would ensure close federal budget monitoring while at the same time it would guarantee the desired level of health standards.
The concept of establishing a tripartite committee to explore all fiscal aspects of medical financing is one that has already been mentioned by hon. members on this side of the House. Such a committee, consisting of both provincial and federal representatives as well as members of the medical profession, would play an integral part in developing the regulatory guidelines.
In the sphere of general health and hospital care the federal government should suggest specific areas in which investigation respecting need and efficiency could be carried out in conjunction with the provinces-for example, examination of the standards of hospital admission, as recently reported in the press, the length of bed occupancy in hospitals, the use of X-ray and laboratory equipment in local clinics and hospitals and, as stated by my colleague, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, the necessity of including cosmetic surgery under medicare.
To return to the point made earlier in my remarks, the escalation of a comprehensive health awareness program would prove invaluable to an eventual decrease of health care costs. The importance of regular physical examinations to detect and treat such irregularities as heart disease cannot be over-emphasized. It is unbelievable that some people do not have a physical examination once a year. They live for years with high blood pressure and do not know it.
Media campaigns such as that conducted by the government with regard to Participaction would be good. That campaign made people aware of their physical condition. It made me aware of it. I have a friend in my small town who is about 48 years of age. Every day he goes through an intensive physical program including jogging and various other exercises. When he asked me to join him on the track, I said that I would take him up on it. I was 27.


Coline M. Campbell: How old are you now?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: I am 28 now. Anyway, we started around the quarter mile track. I went around once and made it half way around again. I could not make it any further without walking. He went around six times and then stopped to talk to me. I decided there and then that it was time I got into that type of program. I now attempt to follow it as often as possible, every day in the summer, and in the gym upstairs in the winter. How many people realize the poor shape you get into by sitting at a desk every day? The majority of Canadians suffer from a lack of physical exercise in their job.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Take Coline with you next time.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: She can join me on the track any time.
Recently I have had conversations with physicians. I believe there are some duplications in their expensive equipment. One physician stated he believed that proper
Medical Care Act
equipment in centrally located hospitals is a necessity and that an ambulance ride of no more than 20 or 30 minutes would be adequate. As it is now some small hospitals feel it is necessary to have all this expensive equipment.
In summary, I recognize that we should try to curb or control health care costs. However, it is my opinion and that of my colleagues that the provisions of Bill C-68, while they may in the long-run serve this end, will undoubtedly be detrimental to the entire health care program and the purpose for which it was originally established. We have an excellent system in operation at the moment here in Canada, one highly regarded by other nations. Surely we must not jeopardize it by allowing this legislation to become law, but must instead seek other methods whereby health care cost efficiency can be increased, methods that will not be injurious but beneficial to the physical wellbeing of Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Madam Speaker, a number of years ago I would have thought it would be totally unnecessary for members of parliament to stand in this House and defend the type of medicare program we have enjoyed since 1968.
Years ago in Timmins, as a miner, I remember talking about the establishment of a health care plan for the miners in that area as the next stage in a form of insurance that then covered the miners with very limited medical service. In trying to sell the idea of a comprehensive plan for a limited number of people in a closed area, we met with violent reaction on the part of many people. There was to be a payment for this group health insurance.
The next stage was when I observed at some distance the province of Saskatchewan deciding to provide the citizens of that province with a group hospital insurance plan.
In 1968, the federal government introduced a program that was so advantageous that most provinces could not refuse to participate, even though they had never before been involved in such an extensive program. As the government was going to pay 50 per cent of their costs, they felt they had to go into the plan.
In several of the mining towns many of us had a group plan that we ourselves had operated for some years. At one time we had a doctor who lost his licence to practice because he had been guilty of procuring abortions. That doctor had been hired to assist in the operation of the plan. It was a very successful plan. But even after those years of participating in a comprehensive plan there was still violent reaction to everyone joining the Ontario plan.
It is interesting now to see the federal government trying to put on the brakes. Medical expenditures must be curtailed. This is being done by the federal government cutting down on its participation with the provinces. This is a backward step.
The federal government is doing one of two things, but has not stated which. It is either saying it is going to economise on the backs of the sick of the nation, or that the provinces should reduce the plans they have implemented because the federal government will not continue to make its contribution of 50 per cent. The federal government agreed in 1967-68 to continue to make a payment with

February 24, 1976
Medical Care Act
an increase in view, but now it suggests that over a five-year period it wishes to curtail expenditures in this field.
I do not believe the federal government wishes to take over medicare services in Canada. I doubt whether it would be well advised to do so.
I recall some of the silly remarks made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) which certainly did not enhance his reputation with me. I can remember when contaminated meat was being sold in certain parts of the country, and his suggestion was to cook it more. I suppose this was an old Biblical or pre-Biblical quotation, something in the Talmud, according to which people did not eat certain types of meat, including pork, because they carried pestilence and infection. Their use was totally banned.
It might be possible in a few years for the minister, if he is still the responsible minister at that time, to bring in a whole list of things we are not supposed to eat because they are cancer-causing. Perhaps we shall find ourselves confronted with a whole list of these things, including charcoal broiled steaks and other items which might have some effect on our health.
The strength of a nation will be judged according to its ability to provide itself with a number of basic services. One of these must be a health service. When the world was uncivilized, emerging from the caves, those who got along best were those who knew how to cure their wounds in a manner better than their neighbours, those who could make best use of certain types of herbs or natural remedies which they were able to find. The use they made of these skills determined their type of culture to a great extent.
If we look back into history we find there were people in the world a long time ago who had developed certain skills in medical treatment to a relatively high degree, and if we examine those cultures we find they were also able to develop almost all the other facets of their civilization somewhat in keeping with their ability to provide medical services. Thousands and thousands of years ago there were physicians who could carry out operations on the brain, operations to repair broken bones, and so on. In some cases apparently abdominal surgery was undertaken; gallbladders were removed and primitive heart surgery was performed. These civilizations must have been quite highly developed. Consider the Egyptian civilization and the preMexican civilization. Both had developed medical skills which enabled their people to move ahead faster than their neighbours.
It is interesting to reflect that our backward minister of health should hit out at reducing the money available for the development of health services. There is no doubt in my mind that the quality of health service across the nation is not consistent. Some people who live in Ontario's golden horseshoe suffer from restricted vision. If they cannot see a thing from the top of the new tower they have built in the city of Toronto, it doesn't exist. If they cannot see health services outside that area, they do not exist and therefore the people do not exist or, certainly, they are not entitled to the benefits available to those who live in the metropolitan area. What is happening in Ontario is only the beginning of what will happen across the nation.

The provinces came into the scheme in many cases because they found it impossible to carry the total burden of providing adequate care for their people. Maybe it should not be mentioned, but there used to be a joke in the Armed Forces that if you went to one particular province you had only to buy a girl a set of false teeth and she would be your friend for life. Where that type of service is not available in a province it should be our responsibility, the responsibility of all Canadians, to provide it. Some of the provinces which are not as wealthy as the central provinces will be forced to cut down further in their provision of essential services.
It always amazes me-and I have said this to the Ontario minister of health-that we should be building new hospitals in some areas only to find, after three of four weeks of operation, on visiting those hospitals there are seven or eight beds out in the corridors. If we cannot plan far enough ahead to guess what is likely to happen in seven or eight weeks there must be something wrong with the type of planning we are doing.
We are experiencing a spot of trouble in Kirkland Lake at the present time. I am not referring to one of the hospitals they are going to close, though they did close the big hospital-parts of it were only 12 years old; they did so with the intention of building the new hospital, one which is considerably smaller. The old hospital had beds in the corridors. And again, in the new, small hospital, there are patients in the corridors.
I talked to the director of hospitals in Ontario and it was interesting to hear him say that 20 beds had been set aside for chronic care. There are hospitals in Florida where it costs $2,000 to stay. Kirkland Lake is cheap by those standards. I spent a few weeks in hospital in Ottawa and it cost well over $100 a day. It is a lot cheaper at Kirkland Lake, at $84. But it would be cheaper still to keep those people in a chronic care unit. That way you could keep three people for the price of one. May I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
William Arnold Peters: Madam Speaker, before we adjourned for dinner I was pointing out that one of the difficulties in Ontario has been inability to adapt medicare to our hospital services in order to make full use of the facilities available and give the widest amount of health care in the most reasonable manner. I used the example of Kirkland Lake where a new hospital much smaller than the last has been built. A number of beds were set aside for chronic care patients; in fact almost one quarter of the hospital beds are allocated to such patients. The old hospital has been vacated. It is still owned and heated by the province and was very suitable for patients needing chronic care. This kind of care would considerably reduce medical costs. Yet we do not see fit to develop this kind of secondary service for patients who can be better cared for in chronic care hospitals. This kind of care makes less demands on surgical processes as it is a more residential type of care.
February 24, 1976

Closing hospitals in Ontario means that many persons will receive less care than previously. One of the matters of concern to the people of northern Ontario is that there is going to be a major change made in the northeastern psychiatric hospital. Ontario has never been very fair to the people in the northern part of the province so far as psychiatric care in this hospital is concerned. In my opinion this hospital was built as a monument to the representative of the area rather than as a centre providing psychiatric care. Nevertheless, it is a big facility and much better use could be made of it.
Consideration is now being given by the minister of health of Ontario to closing the facility and relocating the patients, using the hospital for some other purpose. Anyone who examines the development of that particular hospital will be made aware that we have never had adequate psychiatric care in that area. The hospital has been operated in the main by one psychiatrist, when they could have used seven or eight. The ancillary services required to operate this kind of hospital have been non-existent. People in the northeastern part of the province are well aware that the hospital may be used for some other purpose but feel it should continue to operate for the benefit of the people.
In addition to closing hospitals we are anticipating removal of the laboratory in North Bay. Although it is not a very big or important lab it is the place where specimens from my part of northern Ontario are sent. If the lab is closed it will mean these specimens will have to go to Toronto, or to a provincial lab in some other part of the province. The distance would be considerable and the process time consuming. The laboratory in North Bay has served a necessary function for the people of that area.
I believe the minister of health has traded off the health of the residents of Canada for money. He has traded off this kind of health care for a return of only $50 million. I am sure most Canadians believe that we in this nation are able to afford not reduced medicare but expanded medicare.
It is a fact that at the present time our jails contain many persons who should not be in them. I am always amused when someone makes the charge that under our parole or temporary relief system a mentally incapable person has been released and that our system has not been able to prevent this. A large number of people in jails in Canada today are not receiving adequate medical attention or psychiatric care simply because we have failed to supply the trained personnel who can give them this kind of treatment. If we did more in this field we would be able to reduce the population in our penitentiaries.
This represents no small saving, Madam Speaker. It costs a minimum of $10,000 to keep one person in jail for one year in one of our federal institutions. It would not require too many to use up the kind of return the minister is going to get from curtailing medical services.
This is also true in the field of drugs. I have been very interested in learning of some of the sentences that have been handed out in regard to drug abuse in the last two or three years. There is a tendency on the part of judges to be lenient with many of those who are not habitual drug users, or even with those who have been convicted more than once of selling drugs. I suspect this is because of one
Medical Care Act
very simple fact, namely, if they are drug addicts of any kind and put into our jail system they receive absolutely no rehabilitative assistance. We have established very few half-way houses and very few centres directed toward curing some of these problems in our drug communities.
It seems to me the minister should be very interested in going into these fields and areas in which our young people have been affected so alarmingly in the last number of years. We have failed in many ways to provide the type of medical care we should be providing. It is wrong for the minister to say now that we are not going to meet the 50 per cent the provinces are willing to put up for the medicare programs they have established, and are not going into any additional programs or allow the provinces to go into them unless they finance them themselves.
While it is true that Ontario has a Conservative and probably a reactionary government, it is also true that other provinces will be going down the same road toward reducing medical costs because of an inability to meet added expenditures. There may well be some provinces that will make a contribution from the provincial treasury to develop or extend programs that are already in existence where there is an obvious demand for and an interest in those programs. Many of these efforts will be made in respect of those fields where people are not able to look after themselves. I suspect these efforts will be made in the psychiatric field, in respect of juvenile offenders, and in respect of the elderly. Provinces will have to face the difficulty of providing for those who cannot be cared for at home and who have to be institutionalized in one way or another.
The charge has been made that we are again establishing the idea of penalizing those who use medical services. I was always impressed by the argument put forward by a Liberal member many years ago when talking about automobile insurance. I think this argument applies equally as well to the medicare insurance program. He said he had driven an automobile for 20 or 30 years, never had an accident and had never collected one red cent from the insurance company, but that did not mean he did not believe in automobile insurance. It just meant he was fortunate enough not to have had to take advantage of the insurance for which he was paying the premium. I think that is true of medicare as well.
Those who are well surely do not object to making a contribution to the medicare scheme of this nation in order to cover all Canadians, even though they may feel they may never receive any benefit from the medicare program. This would only indicate that they expect never to be seriously ill or suffer from a lengthy sickness. Canadians generally have not made the decision to curtail medicare services. The general trend has been in the other direction.
There is great sympathy and support in all communities for the developement of day-care centres, schools for young children who have serious learning problems, and schools for young children with hypertension problems. There is a great deal of support for the establishment of schools to provide for slow learners, those hard of hearing and others suffering from all kinds of difficulties, particularly those that mainly affect young people. Much of this

February 24, 1976
Medical Care Act
support comes from the educational system at the local level, supported by the communities, because the local people are knowledgeable and concerned about the welfare of those less fortunate than themselves.
It is wrong for the minister to assume that the people of Canada do not want to extend the medicare scheme. It is irresponsible to suggest that the federal government should no longer contribute toward the extension of medicare shemes but should curtail welfare programs and their extension. The increase of 13 per cent allowed under this measure is not sufficient to meet even the increase in population. It will not in the first year meet the anticipated population growth nor the increase in demand for health services. This means we will be worse off unless the provinces contribute more than their 50 per cent share.
I should like to see the Minister of National Health and Welfare pay more attention to some of the recommendations in the Hall report. I should like to see him bring before parliament some indication from his officials that studies had been conducted which would indicate there are alternatives to the curtailment of medical services in Canada. There are other curtailments that would allow for the same or increased medical services. One might be in the form of deterrent fees, while another might be in the form of more efficient supervision within the hospital structure. It may be there are certain types of cosmetic operations that could be eliminated from the plan. There are a number of possible alternatives which would allow the minister to contribute a 50 per cent share of a universal medicare scheme for all Canadians, thus providing the kind of health services that we living in this society demand.
I was impressed by those hon. members who said during this debate that they were shocked by the minister taking pride in the fact that Canada ranks fifth or sixth in the provision of health services in the world.


An hon. Member:: We are first.


William Arnold Peters: Maybe I am being parochial, but I think we should be first. I have been in other countries and observed health care services there, and I know we are not first. There are many things in the Canadian medicare service the minister of national health believes to be frills which in other countries are accepted as necessary. I suggest it would be very difficult even for the Conservatives to remove some of these added benefits.


An hon. Member:: Even red Tories.


William Arnold Peters: Any kind, left, right or centre. I am not surprised that Conservatives are joining us in this attempt to have the minister change his mind about reductions in this field. A long time ago I heard an interesting definition of a Conservative, and I was interested in comparing that definition to the one I heard used on television in the last few days.
An old gentleman told me years ago that a Conservative was a man who fights all his life to retain what his father fought all his life to prevent. I can remember Conservatives fighting very hard a number of years ago to see that medicare was not brought into being in Canada. Now they are fighting very hard to retain it in its present form. I

congratulate them for that. I sincerely believe that if there is any field to which the government should give consideration it is the field of providing and extending medical care services to the people.
I do not think it is possible to equate money with people's lives. I do not think we can have a healthy population if people live in unsanitary or unsuitable accommodation. I do not believe it is possible to have a healthy nation when 10 per cent or 12 per cent of the population is continually unemployed, nor do I think we can have a healthy nation when we do not provide, to the best of our ability, adequate health service to all the people. I do not think we have been providing it to the best of our ability. I believe much more could be done.
I am quite sure we should be spending ten times the amount we spend on research. I am always shocked to hear the Minister of National Health and Welfare make statements such as we now have a report from the United States saying that cyclamates are cancer-forming and that they will have to be withdrawn. We do not have any research people in Canada capable of making such a decision. We have to hear about it from the Americans. This is the reason sometimes we make a mistake in taking an item off the market and then finding we have to put it back on the market again. We have not reached the stage where we can conduct our own research in respect of food additives and so on. We do not have the research facilities and qualified staff to provide this service.
I found it interesting to hear that while there is a shortage of blood in Canada the Red Cross can sell it internationally. Now it seems we are wondering whether the blood we are sending to other countries meets our standards. I understand there is some question about this.
We hear the Minister of National Health and Welfare tell the Canadian people that hamburger is bad, that it is horse meat or that it comes from dead animals. It is suggested that it contains a large amount of bacteria but that if it is cooked for another five minutes it will not have any bad effect. If that is the kind of advice our federal Department of Health provides the Canadian people then we have not progressed too far and we are not spending too much money on the health of our nation. I think the priorities of the government are wrong.
There is no doubt in my mind that if the government wishes to curtail services in a number of fields one of these fields is the civil service. It is obviously top heavy. I have heard that there is a cut-back in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. They are not cutting back those at the top but are cutting back on the number of Indians who have been hired by the Department. That is par for the course.
There are cuts which can be made in Canada, but there are some fields in which I do not think we should compromise. Certainly health must be one of the fields in which curtailment of service is neither desirable nor feasible if we are to have a strong and healthy nation.
I was very interested to listen to the, I presume, 27-year old member this afternoon when he indicated that when he was 26 years old he could not run around a quarter mile track more than once. I am pleased to learn that he has

taken unto himself a training program that will provide fitness. I think this is a very good idea. It is something we should be looking at with a view to encouraging the Canadian people to exercise and take advantage of what I consider to be preventive measures which up to date we in this country have not taken much pain to promote.
I remember hearing the previous minister of national health and welfare talk about giving up smoking. It was supposed to be bad for the lungs and cancer-producing. But while he was lecturing the Canadian people his cigarette smoke was flying in all directions. I do not see the present minister engaging in athletic activities that would encourage our young people to follow his example. Certainly when we come back from an international series of games with only one gold medal it is obvious that we are not as developed in the athletic sense as are some other countries.
It is interesting to note that in most European countries the people engage in calisthenics and active sport from an early age, not for the purpose of beating up each other as we do in some of our sports but in order to gain athletic prowess so that the nation will have healthy people who will maintain their health in the years to come. I speak not from experience but from observation. I have reached the age at which people have heart attacks and all the other things. Since I left manual labour some years ago I certainly have not followed the kind of advice I advocate. However, there has been very little leadership given in this field.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


An hon. Member:: There has been leadership.


William Arnold Peters: Someone said there has been leadership. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. There does not seem to be much benefit anyone can point to with pride. We have spent much money. The member who is speaking now should remember that one of the members who represented his riding before him went that way very early in life partly because of his habits and his lack of exercise. I would advise the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) not to push it because he too may get into our age category without the benefit of the protection of an athletic program that might help him develop. I think this would be one of the most important things the Canadian parliament could do for some time to come.
I believe it is absolutely necessary that all members of parliament speak out against this unreasonable reduction. We see the minister of health for Ontario traipsing around the country closing hospitals simply because his government must curtail expenses in order to keep within the budget dictated by the federal government.


An hon. Member:: Shame on the federal government.


William Arnold Peters: Yes. I think it is the federal government which has caused this. I do not think they would have closed those hospitals if the federal government had continued to provide the money.


Marc Lalonde: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. member has spoken quite a bit about hospitals. This bill deals with medical care. It has nothing to do with hospital insurance. It has nothing to do with whatever the
Medical Care Act
minister of health for Ontario is doing in respect of hospitals. I submit discussion of hospital costs and hospital insurance is outside the scope of the bill we are debating.


William Arnold Peters: The Canadian people have now witnessed very plainly exactly why we are not satisfied with the Minister of National Health and Welfare or with the bill which is before us. He does not see any relationship between hospitals and medical care. I do not know where he thinks the money comes from in Ontario for the medical care aspect. I wonder whether we would have all the doctors and support staff we have if operations were to be carried out on someone's kitchen table.
Hospitals are part of the package. They are not financed by the federal government, but obviously if you rob Peter you will have to get it from Paul, or from Mark, to retain the biblical flavour. It would seem to me that the minister of health in Ontario, the same as every minister of health in Canada, is limited to the amount of money which he has available for health services in that province. If he has to pay more to medicare, he will have tq take it from the hospital care budget because it will have to be a package deal and the money has to come from somewhere.
If the Minister of National Health and Welfare does not know that, then I feel sorry for him, but I am more sorry for the provincial ministers of health with whom he has to deal. If he can divide it up among them, I am sorry for them because it will not be possible for them to get what they need when they go to their respective cabinets and ask for their allotment. This has produced some very bad results in Ontario, and I think it will produce bad results all across the country. I am worried that this is likely to get progressively worse.
This legislation does not take into consideration an escalator clause in the cost of living which would normally be expected, and it does not take into consideration the population growth. These are fixed considerations which remain year after year. The criterion should be that as we increase in wealth in Canada, and as our gross national product and our productivity increase, we should be able to supply more medicare services to Canadians, not less.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has now expired. Is the House ready for the question?


Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: May I say, Madam Speaker, that I have followed this debate with great interest. Unfortunately, I have not been here for most of the speeches, but I have read them carefully and I think the majority of points have been made in this debate. However, there are a few issues with which I would like to deal for a few minutes this evening. Let me say at the outset that I believe this piece of legislation before us, in particular in view of the announcement by the former minister of finance in June that there would be renegotiation of the Hospital Diagnostic Services Act at a later date, is perhaps the most regressive legislation that I have seen introduced in the House since 1972.
I have no intention of repeating the various figures that have been supplied by many hon. members throughout this

February 24, 1976
Medical Care Act
debate. They indicate in fact that the cost of the medicare program has been below the projected figures in the past two or three years.
I have no hesitation in supporting the suggestions that have been made that we need a far more flexible arrangement between the provinces and the federal government so that we can have programs which will permit the development of either comparable or better services at a lower cost.
I have no intention this evening of entering into the numbers game, but I submit that if any province were forced by this legislation to find additional sums of money to implement the program, the obvious winner of course would be the federal government. Let me give as an example, say, the province of Ontario. I think it is quite obvious that if this bill were introduced and passed and the provincial government found it necessary to find, speaking hypothetically, $100 million to service that program and they were taxed at the rate of approximately 50 per cent, it takes little imagination and a very dull pencil to figure out who would be the benefactor.
What concerns me about this bill is that it is obviously a political struggle between the provinces and the federal government, and I believe it is at the expense of the health care system and would involve the entire social security system in Canada. I was very interested in the minister's comments when he made his speech. He found it necessary to defend this bill, particularly following the inception of the anti-inflation program which, to the casual observer, should have made this bill somewhat obsolete. I could not help but recall an article in one of the Ottawa newspapers of June 26 written by Richard Gwyn. What he said is probably coming true. He wrote:
The sharpest pre-budget debate pitted Turner against welfare minister Marc Lalonde, the minister best able to match him on even terms. Turner wanted hospital and medical services costs curbed: Lalonde argued for his own projects, and lost. The score between these cabinet heavyweights now is Turner two, Lalonde one. Earlier this year Turner got the starting date for Lalonde's guaranteed income plan postponed, but Lalonde came back later to win cabinet approval to make a financial offer to the provinces.
I think that a good deal of the negotiations that have taken place between the federal and provincial authorities are known to us in a general way. Many of us on this side of the House who are extremely interested in the entire social security program are somewhat concerned that greater details are not available to us, not only with reference to the medicare program-I know the minister was talking about this somewhat earlier-but with reference to the total security program, because this is in fact part of that parcel.
During his speech on January 28 of this year the minister was discussing ways and means of controlling health costs and he made reference to his working document "A New Perspective on the Health of Canadians". He emphasized preventive methods and the necessity of people assuming more responsibility for monitoring and improving their health. He also emphasized the necessity of reducing health hazards in the environment. I have no difficulty in identifying with the minister's comments, and indeed I myself have spoken on these issues and on the necessity of redirecting our resources within the health

care system to achieve some of the goals the minister has mentioned.
The minister knows that I approve of the approach in principle in terms of the health policy, and particularly in terms of the cornerstones of this policy when he talks about lifestyles, environmental components, the health care organization, and human biology. I think it does permit a more rational and rapid method of analysing health policies, somewhat better than the traditional breakdown we have seen in the past, when we talk about such things as preventive or rehabilitative medicine and when we talk about mental health, public health, diagnostic services, a multitude of terms used in the past. There is no question that this formula which has been talked about in the past, and which I have written about, certainly rationalizes the health care system to a greater degree than has been experienced in the past.
It also has the advantage of emphasizing the preventive side of health care as opposed to the more traditional curative side about which we frequently talk.
What I object to is that the minister has utilized the working paper as a smoke screen to justify the introduction of this bill. He has really not provided an adequate forum for an adequate debate, and indeed has not provided leadership in translating these words in the past year or two into action. I must emphasize to the minister that the health field concept as visualized in his working document raises far more questions than answers. Surely he must realize that the literature is filled with articles which emphasize the prevention of diseases, articles which discuss the promotion of health, and articles dealing specifically with various areas of health education, and there is no doubt that this emphasis is relevent to our current and future needs.
However, the reality of the situation is that the record thus far has not been impressive, and the minister knows that the curative bias we see in our health care system will not magically disappear in the near future, and of course will have little impact in terms of the cost which the minister would like us to believe will occur with this particular concept.
I have no intention of embarking on a philosophical discussion at this particular time as to the extent government should be involved, whether it be in environmental matters or lifestyle matters. I think this is an important debate which should take place at some point in time, but I caution the minister to assess it very carefully-and I suggest that he should have a complete understanding of the implications of this particular document he has presented on a health perspective. The risk is not in the concept, but the risk and the danger are that the concept may be misinterpreted or misused, and in the final analysis if that were to occur, it would then fail because of lack of understanding.
I believe the minister is attempting to mislead us by employing this health concept which he has introduced and by saying that savings are available; yet we know that there is not adequate statistical or epidemiological data at this time to make certain that these concepts will surely work and will surely be effective. I think it is very impor-
February 24, 1976

tant at some future date that we do have the statistical data and that we do have the epidemiological studies which are required before some of these particular decisions are made, or before governments embark on very grandiose programs which could be very costly and perhaps of little help.
There are many features of the working document and the concept which should be debated, but by way of illustration I should like briefly to look at two examples which I think would point out very clearly the lack of interest of the minister in the particular concept, or perhaps his lack of understanding of the concept, in areas in which he and the government could move in a more positive fashion.
The minister quite rightly emphasized throughout his speech the importance of the industrial safety program, and he specifically made reference to the program called LIFE, "learn industrial first aid effectively," a program which is carried out by that very superb group, the St. John Ambulance Society. However, it is more relevant to ask the minister what comprehensive program he and his department have developed in terms of industrial safety and in terms of occupational hazards. Just for a moment let me mention, for example, words like mercury poisoning, Minamata's disease, arsenic poisoning, lead poisoning and radiation poisoning. These are terms common to the tongues of all individuals. I suggest if there is an area where there is need and where federal leadership could be demonstrated in terms of environmental and lifestyle problems, surely this is such an area.
I suggest that at his first opportunity the minister present to this House his comprehensive document, if he has it, which would clearly define the policy of the government in terms of dealing with occupational hazards and safety standards, to which he referred in his speech in January.
Let me give one final example in this regard and refer to the minister's insincerity. Perhaps that is a little too harsh. I will refer to his lack of understanding of the health field concept which he has proposed. I now refer to that important concept referred to as the area of human biology. Yet if one reads his speech very carefully there is no reference to that particular cornerstone of the health field concept about which he has talked. I think it is important to understand why this was left out of the minister's speech.
Certainly since I came to the House in 1972 the minister has demonstrated very clearly that he has little or no interest in the field of medical research. I must admit that at one point after a great deal of effort in the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs there was a supplementary estimate, as the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) pointed out in his speech, in which there was a freezing of funds for medical research within the past two years.
If we look at the definition of human biology, it deals principally with that area which applies to applied and pure research. Of course it also implies the implementation of measures to combat diseases which are genetic in origin or related to human biology. I think this is extremely important. As a matter of fact, if I may, I should like to quote an article from the Canadian Medical Association Journal of September, 1974, entitled "constitutional impasse has impeded health dialogue." I believe this article
Medical Care Act
is as pertinent today as it was at that time. It relates to the entire area of medical research and was combined, actually, with the whole area of research at the time. If I may say so, I wrote this article in September of 1974.
However, I think it is relevant because in my view the minister again has ignored this particular problem which is part of his health field concept. I think this represents an attitude on the part of the minister and the federal government in the entire field of health. I should like to quote as follows:
With the advent of universal hospital and medical coverage we have witnessed a rapid escalation of health costs and the inevitable platitudes demanding a more efficient, comprehensive and co-ordinated health care system.
The inability to resolve the constitutional and fiscal responsibilities for health care at federal-provincial conferences has created an era of paralysis in dealing with health problems that are national in scope. Research, education and health care are the victims of this paralysis. Medical research typifies an important building block of our health care system that is seriously threatened by recent actions of the federal government.
The decrease of funds in constant dollars to the Medical Research Council has created a crisis situation in the biomedical research community. The sweeping changes proposed for Canadian science in the throne speech in February have added to the uncertainty of the future role and importance of medical research. These changes and the absence of clearly defined objectives have produced instability and scepticism in many areas of science.
The Medical Research Council, as an autonomous crown corporation, has been the agency responsible for the major allocation of federal support towards medical research. Successive budgets of the Medical Research Council and the Department of National Health and Welfare reveal a significant change in attitude, if not policy, towards medical research.
During the late 60's, there was an expansion of the medical Research Council's budget augmented by the Health Resources Fund. The budgets reflected the need and desire to create a viable and effective Canadian health research community. The confidence experienced during that era and the hope for the future were the needed stimuli to attract scientists and provide career opportunities for young qualified students.
In contrast to the late 60's, the budgets of the Medical Research Council during the 70's have seen a decline in constant dollar spending, a rejection of excellent research, cuts in personnel support programs and an increase in terminal grants. This has been accompanied by an increase of funds from the Department of National Health and Welfare for the National Health Grants Program established in 1970 to promote research into health care and the health care delivery systems, and an increase in expenditures for the non-medical use of drugs program. This shift in policy by the federal government has occurred at the expense of biomedical research and without an appreciation of the interdependence of all health research programs.
The science policy announced in the throne speech-
And the announcement was extremely important.
-constitutes substantial and significant changes that will undoubtedly have far-reaching effects in public policy. The scope and authority of the Ministry of State, Science and Technology ... are to be broadened and strengthened to such an extent it will have the potential of a superministry virtually affecting every scientific endeavour in Canada.
The proposed changes will involve government structures and future policy orientation and development. Thousands of the most able and highly qualified people in the country, together with the teaching and research institutions across Canada, will be directly affected. With the appropriation of hundreds of millions of dollars at its disposal every year, the total spectrum of research and development will be directly related to government priorities and national goals.
Germane to the future of medical research is the proposed re-orientation of the Medical Research Council. The council will report to the

February 24, 1976
Medical Care Act
government through the Minister of State for Science and Technology as will the two proposed new granting councils, the Natural Science Research Council and a Social Science and Humanities Research Council. These councils will be co-ordinated by an intercouncil co-ordinating committee chaired by the secretary of MOSST and will report to the Minister of State for Science and Technology.
In the vernacular of the politician we have been assured that the Medical Research Council will remain unchanged ...
This, as we know, is nonsense.
... The council is now to relate to government through a science and technology ministry; this is significant in that it will in time result in substantial changes in its function. In addition, the throne speech announcements signal new directions in government research policy and the decision by the government that the work of the various research councils and granting bodies should more directly serve its own policy objectives.
In the relatively short span of eight years, the prestigious Medical Research Council has seen a confident future replaced by financial crisis and the sanctity of autonomy founded and developed on the principle of scientific excellence threatened by internal reorganization. In addition, the Medical Research Council will be divorced from the expanding intramural and extramural research programs developed by the Department of National Health and Welfare, thereby severing the interdependence of health research, creating fragmentation.
This atmosphere of stagnation and ill-defined change has created new phenonema alien to many in the academic and research community and to the profession as a whole.
The funds for medical research have not kept pace with society's demands or the research community's expectations. There are increased difficulties in deciding to which discipline or project money should preferentially go. There is a growing feeling that the quality of the research people and the significance of their work is not recognized by the policymakers responsible for funding research. The controversy of pure versus applied research remains as a vestige of an earlier era, unresolved and ill-fitted within the framework of health care research.
The ultimate goal of all health research is to improve the health of each Canadian. Society expects-and we have the responsibility to ensure-high standards of medical education, health service and health care. Research is linked intimately to the training of professional manpower and a high-quality health care system is therefore dependent on a viable research base. Medical and health education, medical and health research and the health-care delivery system are inseparably linked.
To date there is not a national policy for medical research. The federal and provincial governments have not defined their plans and policies for health, health resources and health-care systems, nor have they indicated a policy and financial support to preserve and strengthen medical research in Canada.
Since the throne speech of 1974 there has been no evidence of a national medical research policy. Certainly the minister has not shown that in his philosophy medical research is the cornerstone of the health delivery and health care system. To my knowledge there is no science policy for Canada, and certainly no medical research policy. Both policies would be important, and their lack is most strange.
The minister has talked of the importance of our understanding human biology, but in the last two or three years has done little to make possible our increased understanding. I cannot recall a single instance of leadership in this field since the reading of the throne speech.
As I said earlier, any definition of human biology must involve a definition of genetics. Problems associated with genetics must be solved; and here again the minister could show leadership. In recent years we have made great strides in terms of the diagnosis of genetic illnesses and problems. Unfortunately, centres for the treatment of genetic difficulties are sporadically scattered across this coun-

try. That this should be so illustrates the rigidity of the Medical Care Act. I do not know how this rigidity will be eliminated, even with the amendments the minister has mentioned. The rigidity of the law has prevented federal and provincial cost-sharing in certain areas of medical care. I submit that genetic counselling centres should be widespread, and such counselling should be available right across the nation. Genetic counselling centres are scattered across the country. There is no national program of counselling, no national program of accreditation. In short, there is no leadership.
Many physicians do not know the great advances made in this field, developments which would help immeasurably many families. Many physicians do not know where to send people for genetic counselling. They do not know the location of the centres. I say this merely to show the minister's lack of interest in an area where the government should provide forceful federal leadership.
I do not want to talk in detail about genetic difficulties. But allow me, Madam Speaker, to make some suggestions to the minister with regard to genetic counselling. I suggest that the minister should consider calling a national conference at which experts in genetics could be brought together. I do not doubt but that such a conference would convince the minister of the importance of this particular field of medicine. There is an immediate role for the federal government in this area. I have talked about this particular health concept in the House in the past.
I have made reference to other areas to which the minister should give consideration, such as mental health, the problems of drug and alcohol abuse, cardiovascular disease, cancer, disease of the lungs, motor vehicle accidents, and problems of the aged. There are many more. However, these are some of the problems that could benefit in a very positive way by leadership from the federal government and the minister and, of course, by a rationalization of our health care system.
Time does not permit a detailed analysis of these problems, but I believe this gives some examples of the problems that could be handled by the minister and that would fit into the concept of a health care field. In my view that is being ignored by the minister. It certainly has not been fertilized by this particular bill.
As I was reading the debates I really had no intention of discussing the issue of medical manpower. I know this is of major concern to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, as it is to his counterparts in the various provinces. I know there have been innumerable discussions regarding this. However, I am prompted to make a few observations having read the speech of the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier). I may say he made some excellent suggestions regarding the medicare bill before us. However, I was somewhat concerned about the section of his speech when he was referring to the number of doctors, specifically in the province of Quebec, and relating it to the number of doctors based on immigration. I want to quote from his speech. I quote from Hansard for January 28, 1976, page 10419:
The minister mentioned the increased number of physicians. In the last few years, the number of doctors has increased but I want to point
February 24, 1976

out to the minister that this increase was not due to the number of students coming out of university but to immigration. We have to import doctors because our students cannot enter university, since the key is in the hands of the College of Physicians. Today, there is a shortage of doctors. The minister said earlier that he was worried about a surplus of physicians, when actually there is a shortage. In the province of Quebec, we need 2,000 more doctors and yet our students are kept out of university. That is why we have to bring in immigrants, so that we may receive medical care from foreigners. I do not mind it, personally, I have nothing against them, but I would much rather see our French-Canadian students enter university freely. This is the one area in the province of Quebec where the situation is most dramatic.
I have a good deal of sympathy for the comments made by the hon. member, but I was most concerned about one sentence in his speech when he said:
We have to import doctors because our students cannot enter university, since the key is in the hands of the College of Physicians.
I wrote a short article on this point which happened to be printed in the February 20, 1976, edition of the Chatham Daily News. I think it is germane and important because there is a myth in this particular regard. I wish to quote from that article:
The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada in presenting their brief to the Special Joint Committee of Parliament on Immigration Policy failed to address itself to the commonly held myth that the medical profession is a "closed shop" and determines the number of Canadian students admitted to medical schools.
Historically, Canada has benefited from the immigration of exceptionally talented physicians. They have played an important role in serving the public in varying capacities ranging from family physicians to leaders in the academic and research community. Interrelated with this policy of immigration is the simple economic fact that it has been less costly for government to import undergraduate students than to train them. Today foreign medical graduates now comprise about one half of all specialists certified by the College and a majority of these remain in Canada to practice their specialty.
There is, however, another side of the scenario in addition to the economic implications. First, there is the moral question of accepting a significant number of specialist physicians in particular from developing countries where their professional needs are in demand. Indeed a case can be made that Canada has developed to the point that we should be a net exporter of health services rather than an importer of health services.
The second point raised by the College is the "reverse discrimination" encouraged by our open door policy in which it is possible for foreign medical graduates to enter our system, while at the same time this privilege is denied highly qualified Canadian students who are unable to gain entrance into Canadian medical schools because of a large number of applicants with superior scholastic records.
Of course, Madam Speaker, this is the very point to which the hon. member was referring.
The brief states: "Canada should move toward training enough undergraduate medical students to meet the needs of the country as a whole. We should look forward to being able to say to Canadian citizens, 'There are enough Canadian medical students to satisfy our needs, there are enough graduate programmes to satisfy their requirements if they all stay in Canada, and there are enough jobs for all if they choose to stay here.' Some will go to the United States, Britain or Europe. We will be able to accommodate some foreign medical graduates of a calibre equal to our own. There will continue to be movement across national borders."
The long term goal for Canada has been adequately outlined in the College's summary. Canada should be self-sufficient in physician manpower, maintaining a balance and ongoing emigration of specialist physicians, and adhering to the historical tradition that this country welcomes talented new citizens.
As I was saying, Madam Speaker, I do not want to get into the area of medical manpower, but I felt for the record
Medical Care Act
it was important to destroy the myth which should have been destroyed by the college itself, but was ignored.
I want to turn for a moment to what I believe is a very basic question which has been avoided in this entire debate. The question is simply how much influence should economics have on the treatment of patients. This does not imply that the Minister of National Health and Welfare, his provincial counterparts, or indeed anyone who thinks about the problem, or any thoughtful Canadians are not concerned about receiving full value for each dollar that is spent in the health care delivery system. This does not decry the importance and the necessity of seeking alternative measures to replace high cost services with low cost services without affecting the quality of health care.
May I interject at this point and mention what I refer to as the add-on principle. I am somewhat concerned from time to time when I hear individuals in our society mention the various forms of health delivery care, noble as it may be, and say the type of service they provide may be excellent. What I am suggesting and what, I am sure, the provincial ministers are suggesting, is that if you are adding a service which is lower in cost you must be certain you are reducing something which is more costly. However, let us assume the minister is correct, that the federal government has taken a realistic stand and that health care costs should be reduced. I surely have no need to describe the effects his proposals are having on the delivery of health care in the various provinces.
Let us be realistic. The introduction of this bill and the announcement made by the former Minister of Finance in June have prompted several decisions within the province of Ontario resulting notably in the closing down of a number of hospitals and a reduction in the number of hospital beds available. The wearing of seat belts has been made mandatory. All these things are in the nature of restraints. I should not care to predict what further measures will be forced upon the provinces by such a program as we have before us, but I say to the minister in all sincerity that the unilateral action of the federal government has started a process of dilution in our health service system which will be felt in every province and every community in Canada. I have no doubt about this.
We must recognise that if we adopt this bill we are embarking on a program which must inevitably lead to mediocrity. The worst part of the legislation before us, irrespective of the amendments about which the minister spoke when he introduced the measure, is that the decisions which are made by him are all predicated on economics rather than on need. This is a factor which in my view has not received sufficient attention in the debate, yet it is a very basic question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to continue?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.

February 24, 1976
Medical Care Act


John Robert Holmes: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I shall try to be brief. What concerns me, as I say, is that I have the impression that the minister's attitude has really been predicated upon economics rather than needs. We are now seeing and hearing a reaction from both consumers and deliverers of the health care system; it becomes apparent that there is a feeling in the minds of the public that the quality of the health care received in the past will be prejudiced as a result of this legislation.
I might remind the minister that before the introduction of the act the very rich and the very poor always received the best of medical care. I recall that in the United States, in the City of Washington, the indigent population received the very best of care; not only did they enjoy the services of an extensive medical staff but their doctors were able to consult experts at the National Institute of Health and the Walter Reed Hospital, and so on. But how will the public react once it has experienced treatment in connection with which there has been no element of economic restraint?
How will deliverers of health care respond when they are confronted with restrictions which adversely affect the treatment of their patients? Will the public really accept diluted health systems which are predicated on economic rather than medical need? Will the public accept a system under which only the very rich may be able to afford access to the best treatment?
I believe the public will awaken and recognise that the minister is in effect proposing a second rate health care system, that the introduction of this bill, together with the announcement made by the former minister of finance in June has altogether changed the federal-provincial relationship. The minister has obviously established the priorities in his own mind and has placed concern for economics above concern for medical needs. I will only say to him that I hope he will persuade the public that public expenditure on the health care of Canadians is not a priority reduction item, particularly having regard to the funds which are spent on some other programs.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend from Timiskaming was speaking a short while ago, discussing the harm which would be done to the hospitalization plan if the government proceeded with this bill. The minister interjected, saying in effect that my hon. friend was dealing with something that had no relation to the bill. He could not have been more wrong and I am sure the minister knew it. I may criticize the minister for many things but I have never thought of him as being stupid. He knew he was wrong.
The bill is one step in a calculated and well planned move on the part of the government to get out of virtually all shared cost programs. The minister said this proposal had nothing to do with hospital insurance. Madam Speaker, it limits the increase in the amount of money the federal government will pay toward a universal medical insurance plan in the next two years by specific amounts, and leaves the increase in subsequent years to be decided unilaterally by the federal government. The government has given notice to the provinces that the present agreement on hospital insurance, under the provisions of which it pays about 50 per cent of hospital insurance costs, will be ended by 1980. That date arises because the federal govern-

ment was required to give five years notice of its desire to terminate the present agreement and to enter upon a new one. The federal government is giving notice that it intends to work out a second agreement, and since it can decide for itself what it will be prepared to do in 1980, the provinces are on notice that the federal government will no longer pay the half cost it has paid up to now.
With hospitalization as with medical insurance, when Ottawa gets out of a shared cost program it has very direct consequences on the provincial governments and the people in the provinces. What can the provinces do in respect to medical or hospital insurance? If Ottawa no longer pays 50 per cent of the cost of these two programs, the provinces have a number of alternatives. For example, they can increase their own contributions to cover the deficit that will occur. All provinces, including the large have provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario, are now in financial difficulties and showing an increase in expenditure over revenue.
If the federal government cuts its percentage contribution below the increase in the cost of present or future hospital or medical insurance plans, the provinces will have to increase their contribution, and it is unlikely that they will be able to do so. In that event they will either have to cut back services or increase the revenue derived from their citizens. This can be done through deterrent fees or through a number of other methods.
We are rightly proud of our medical insurance and hospital insurance plans. When I spoke on this bill several weeks ago I talked about the federal civil servant who, when someone in the family went into a hospital in the United States, was required to put down a deposit of $1,500 before the hospital would admit that person.
Since that time I have come across the case of some friends from the city of Winnipeg who were visiting in Florida. The camper in which they were sleeping was hit by lightning during the course of an electrical storm and caught fire. The husband is now in hospital; he has been there for three weeks and will probably be there for another three weeks. The cost of the hospital alone, not including any medical bills, in Florida is over $2,000 a week. I would suggest there are very few people in this country or in any other country who could afford to meet this kind of bill.
If people do not have to worry about completely wiping out their life's savings at the present time to pay hospital bills, it is because we have a universal hospital insurance plan in this country. This kind of universal plan has taken away the fear of financial disaster from Canadian citizens, but the plan will disappear as the federal government's limitation on the amount of money it pays for hospital and medical insurance plans begins to bite.
A similar process has now begun in the field of postsecondary education. Having persuaded the provinces to expand vastly their university and community college programs begun in 1972, the federal government has put a ceiling of 15 per cent on the increased amount it will pay each year. Post-secondary education costs have been rising by a very substantial amount each year. In a recent study that was made of the Canadian educational system by an
February 24, 1976

OECD committee, Canada was given high marks for the tremendous job done by the federal and provincial governments in improving the educational system of this country. The study showed the tremendous increase in the number of students attending elementary and secondary schools as well as the large number of people attending post-secondary institutions, such as our universities, community colleges, and manpower training programs.
All the provinces have done an excellent job in this regard, to a large extent as a result of the financial inducements offered to them by the federal government. At a time when costs began increasing very rapidly, the federal government a couple of years ago put a ceiling on the increase that it would pay in any year of 15 per cent. The present agreement with the provinces expires in March, 1977, and there has been no indication given by the federal government that it is prepared to renew the agreement with the provinces, to improve it, or to do anything else. Indeed no discussions at all have been held with the provinces. It is not at all unlikely, given the example of medical and hospital insurance which we are now discussing, that in 1977 the federal government will cut the 15 per cent ceiling which it has already introduced unilaterally.
A similar situation existed in the welfare field. It was not many years ago that a Liberal government introduced the Canada Assistance Plan. We were given the most glowing description of what a great plan it was, how it was the culmination of a quarter century or more of Liberal party thought, planning, studies, and promises of a comprehensive social security system.
This plan has been in effect for only a few years, and lo and behold the minister has now given notice that he intends to introduce a social services act to come into effect in 1977. This is an act that will run parallel with the present Canada Assistance Plan for three years, after which time the Canada Assistance Plan will disappear.
It seems that the minister and his government have had second thoughts about universal fees, users' charges, and deterrent fees. We are talking about programs which are not even completely in place yet. We are also talking about expansion of day-care centres. I saw a report in today's newspaper about the minister meeting with a group of women and promising an expansion of day-care centres. We are also talking about nursing homes of which there are certainly not enough. If there is any hope that we can cut back on the sharp and continually increasing cost of hospitalization, surely one of the ways to do so is to establish adequate nursing homes and convalescent hospitals which would be much cheaper than the high cost, intensive hospitalization plans which the federal government now funds.
These are plans that are not yet funded, or funded on any regular, continuing basis, but which the provinces understand. Yet already the minister has given an indication that the federal government intends to cut back on the agreements it has with the provinces under the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan.
In the field of manpower there have been unilateral and continuing cutbacks in grants for training programs in all provinces. What has happened? The provinces got into the
Medical Care Act
delivery of manpower training largely because of what I believe was the mistaken concept of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his government that the federal government has no business in the field of education, and that this is solely the responsibility of the provinces.
It was felt that the federal government could and should be involved in manpower training. However, Ottawa did not establish its own manpower centres. It contracted with the provinces and with local educational divisions to use their facilities. Facilities were built and extended, teachers were hired, and equipment was purchased, to a large extent to provide for the manpower training needs as defined by the federal department of manpower. Because of the financial constraints the federal government has unilaterally begun to cut back on manpower training agreements with the provinces. It- has cut back on the purchase of manpower training equipment in the community colleges and other institutions in the provinces.
Let us consider the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. At a time when the have-not provinces, Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, northern Ontario and northern Saskatchewan were experiencing sharp increases in unemployment-


Mr. Bechard:: And eastern Quebec.


David Orlikow: Yes, and eastern Quebec, and I wish the hon. member who made that interjection would get up and support me in the case I am making. At a time when these areas are experiencing sharp increases in unemployment and in welfare costs, DREE is at best holding the line. There are virtually no increases in the funds of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. Holding the line in a period when we have had a 10 per cent or more increase in inflation in each of the last two or three years means a cutback in the real money that can be spent to provide jobs in these areas.
Let us look at the department which supposedly was established to protect the rights and meet the needs of the most deprived people in this country, and I am talking about the native people, the Indians and Eskimos. At a time when costs are skyrocketing the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been chipping away at the expenditures it is prepared to make to provide for the health and welfare needs of our native people.
For example, when the province of Saskatchewan inaugurated a program of providing hearing aids for people who need them Ottawa said it was not going to pay for hearing aids for native people in Saskatchewan. How cheap can the government get? These are the programs the federal government decided to implement unilaterally.
I put these facts on the record not because I believe everything the provinces do is right, and not only because I am concerned about the very rapid and substantial increase in the cost of medical plans. Of course I am concerned about that. I am concerned about that as a member of parliament, as a citizen who has to pay the increases himself and whose constituents have to pay the increases.
The point surely is that when Ottawa gets out of these programs or limits its contributions to them, the shortfall

February 24, 1976
Medical Care Act
of funds must be picked up by the provinces or by the individual citizen, regardless, and I emphasize that word "regardless", of their ability or inability to pay. This is why I am concerned.
We have had a health insurance plan and a hospital insurance plan in this country for many years; in the case of the health insurance plan, for more than ten years, and in the case of the hospital insurance plan for more than 20 years. During that time the federal government has not administered any of these programs, not the hospitalization or the medical insurance plans. They have been organized, run and operated by the provinces. The provinces have the experience. Ottawa does not have that experience or the know-how.
I would say the provinces of Nova Scotia, Ontario and Quebec must be more concerned about the rapid increase in the cost of medical insurance and the implications to their financial structures than is the federal government, because they are much less able to raise the money through taxation, deterrent fees or in any other way than is the federal government. They are concerned, but they are and have been willing from the beginning to meet at the official or at the ministerial level to work out in detail plans which can be made at least to begin to halt the constant escalation in costs.
Despite many promises by the minister, going back to 1973 at least, that the federal government would not implement changes unilaterally, that has not been the case. The minister and the government have broken all their promises to the provinces. Not many months ago the minister promised the provinces that his deputy would meet with provincial deputy ministers on March 16 and 17 to discuss cost-sharing programs and reforms that could be made to save money.
The minister agreed to meet with provincial ministers of health on April 27 and 28. That will be the first meeting since January 1975, to discuss this question. The minister has been meeting with individual provincial ministers of health. He has refused for more than a year to meet with them jointly. I can only assume that he thought by meeting with them individually he could drive a wedge between them.
I presume it is evidence of the minister's good faith that he is going to meet with provincial ministers of health to discuss in a friendly way methods of slowing down increasing costs of medical care without the necessity of using the big stick or threat of this bill. If the minister is interested in discussions and agreements rather than in confrontation and unilateral decisions he ought to agree to the amendment proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), which would set this bill aside at least until after the minister has met with provincial ministers to see whether an agreement can be reached.
If the minister insists on continuing with this bill then we can only assume that he and the government have no intention or desire to reach an agreement with the provinces which would be mutually acceptable to all the provinces and the federal government. We would have to assume that the minister intends to implement this despite

the feelings of the provinces; that is, that he intends to make unilateral decisions in respect of cutting back on the shared cost program about which I have spoken.
We are talking about an extremely serious matter. We are talking about programs which cost the provinces not hundreds of dollars but more than $1,000 million for health insurance alone, the cost of which Ottawa does not now share with the provinces. It is no wonder the provinces are worried, are frightened, and are apprehensive. Given the kind of stubbornness and arrogance the minister has shown, the provinces, to say the least, are frightened sick.
I should like to spend a little time placing on the record the feelings of the provinces. Let me emphasize again that while I may be speaking in the main of the position of the government of Manitoba on this question, all the provinces are united in their objection to this bill and to the proposals being made by the minister. If we look over the list of the provinces we will see that the Conservative government of Newfoundland, the Liberal government of Nova Scotia, the Conservative government of New Brunswick, the Liberal government of Quebec-with which I think the minister has a good deal of relationship-the Conservative government of Ontario, the NDP governments of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, the Conservative government of Alberta, and although I have not seen anything specific I believe, the Social Credit government of British Columbia, as was the former NDP government of British Columbia, are united in their opposition.
The provinces have agreed to undertake a broad analysis in an attempt to define more precisely those concerns they have voiced in discussions over the past couple of years with the minister and his government. They have carried on some studies which show that most provinces would experience a serious shortfall in revenues under the proposal for a GNP escalator plan, even with the so-called risk sharing modifications the minister proposed.
Their studies showed that the proposed thrust funds would be barely adequate to cover these shortfalls in some provinces and would be far from sufficient to offset losses experienced in other provinces. The studies showed that most provinces have committed themselves in recent years to improving their services to bring about greater efficiencies despite the fact that these efforts are not supported by any cost-sharing assistance from the federal government. Their commitment in total terms is such that they cannot afford to consider, much less accept, any financing formula which would provide even less assistance to the provinces than they have been receiving up until now.
According to their joint study the ten provinces were spending last year a total of over $1.2 billion a year in respect of health programs for which there is no cost sharing available. They have calculated that by the fiscal year 1978-79 their expenditures will increase to $1.9 billion annually. What is happening is that when the provinces devise programs which are much less expensive than programs now jointly funded, they cannot obtain any money from the federal government even if they can demonstrate that the cost of such programs is substantially less than the present programs.
Let me give two illustrations. The province of Saskatchewan has inaugurated a nurse-practitioner program. Through this program a registered nurse is given further
February 24, 1976

training so that she can deal with many of the health needs of the people who live in rural areas, in small areas or villages where there is not now medical service available. It should be obvious to the minister and to the government first of all that this is a needed service which has not been met in recent years in Saskatchewan, and I am sure in similar areas in other provinces where there is a shortage of doctors. Instead of encouraging such a program, and encouraging its expansion into other areas of Saskatchewan and other areas in other provinces, this program is not jointly funded by the federal government.
Several years ago the province of Manitoba inaugurated a program which is partially funded by the federal government. It is called "New Careers". Under this program the provincial government hires and trains native people and immigrants to work for the province in areas not now provided with health or welfare services.
These people, who very often do not even have a high school education, are given training for a period of from six weeks to a year to perform specific jobs in the field of health such as giving inoculations and performing other services which up until now have been carried out by doctors or registered nurses. These people work in areas where there are not sufficient doctors or registered nurses.
This program has been a tremendous success. It has been lauded by a number of federal government departments. This program cannot expand because it is not cost-shared by the federal government unless the federal government looks at every job and every training program that is inaugurated. Such programs should be encouraged because in this way services are provided more cheaply than are the nursing services now provided under the present system.
What is happening? Just when the provinces are developing programs, the federal government has decided unilaterally to cut back on the money which it pays them. As I have said on other occasions, and as I have said earlier tonight, I am not opposed to consideration by all levels of government of ways and means of cutting back on increased expenditure, but the way not to do it is by the kind of unilateral decision which is made by the government and proposed in this bill.
As I have said, the provinces have looked at what they are paying out in order to meet the health needs of their people. The estimates which they have made suggest that the total health care expenditure in the ten provinces, including federal shared cost support, will probably rise between 15 per cent and 20 per cent in the next year, an increase of more than $1 billion over the estimated $6.6 billion which was spent by the provincial governments in the last fiscal year. Given that tremendous problem, the provincial health ministers arrived at a number of conclusions among which I want to refer to just two.
In January of 1975 they agreed at a meeting which they held in Ottawa, first, that each province should receive no less federal financial support than it would have received for the funding of health insurance programs under the current arrangement; second, that new financing arrangements must allow the provinces flexibility to pursue programs in accordance with their own particular priorities;
Medical Care Act
third, that the new arrangements must allow for equitable cost sharing of both the start-up and continuing operating costs of new programs, as well as changes within existing programs; and fourth, that new arrangements should relate to health goals and objectives, and should provide encouragement to new provincial programs which offer alternatives to high cost services. Examples of such alternatives include home care, geriatric services, community health services, and ambulatory care.
That kind of proposal has not even been discussed with the federal minister, not because the provinces have not been willing but because the minister has simply refused to meet with them. Yet on the day that that meeting was held in Ottawa, the minister held a press conference. I want to put on the record a couple of paragraphs from the interview which he gave for the press and which was reported in the Ottawa Journal of January 15, 1975. They read:
The federal government may soon be contributing more money toward the cost of the country's health services . ..
He told reporters at the federal-provincial health ministers conference that a committee will be set up to study cost-sharing legislation to see if the federal government can, under present laws, help pay for alternative provincial health services.
That committee has not yet met, and the minister has not yet met with the provinces. It is not surprising therefore that the provinces, to say the least, were highly critical and very vocal in their criticism of the minister and of his proposal.
On August 19, 1975, the provincial health ministers met in Victoria. Let me quote what some of them said, as reported in the Victoria Colonist of August 19, 1975, as follows:
Health ministers from all ten Canadian provinces were unanimous Monday in their criticism of proposed new federal health service costsharing formulas ...
Saskatchewan Health Minister Walter Smishek charged that the federal government had misled the provinces over cost-sharing formulas for health services. He said the federal government had bargained "in bad faith, misled the provinces, and as a result left them to pick up large, increasing bills which were to have been shared by Ottawa".
In case the minister would suggest that this is a criticism which is politically partisan coming as it did from an NDP health minister, let me quote what the Liberal health minister from the province of Nova Scotia, Mr. MacEachen, said. He was concerned that the tapering off of federal financing can seriouly affect health care in his province, and he said:
"If the federal government is suggesting that it has solved the problems of inflation, then the limitations proposed on increases of medical care payments may not have too great an effect... if, however, general inflation carries on at or near its present rate, we could be in serious difficulty.
When the premiers met in August of 1975 in Newfoundland, they passed a resolution which is as follows. I will just give the last part of it because my time is limited. It reads:
Be it therefore resolved that the Prime Minister of Canada be requested to convene a conference of first ministers to consider the present shared cost programs and the future of such programs with particular reference to the fields of hospital insurance and medicare, currently the subject of concern, and to consider ways in which the Government of Canada and the provinces, together, can control the

February 24, 1976
Adjournment Debate
costs of shared cost programs in the most effective manner, consistent with desirable standards of service.
That was an excellent, well documented, well thought out resolution. I suggest to the minister that he could give meaning to that resolution by agreeing to the proposal made by my colleague the hon. member for Broadview, that this bill be stood over for six months.


Mr. Alan Martin (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, in the one or two minutes available to me I will make just a few remarks and then perhaps continue at the next sitting.
I had no intention of rising to speak on this bill. However, it does perturb me to hear hon. members from opposition parties stand in the House and speak against many aspects of Bill C-68 and indeed against the content of the bill because, after all, what the government is attempting to do with this bill is, I suggest, a very important thing, namely, it is endeavouring to show leadership in the area of restraint, a matter that is extremely important in the eyes of so many Canadians today when ordinary people at all levels and in all walks of life are being asked to show restraint in terms of wages, and industries, big and large, are being asked to show restraint in terms of prices.
I think the government needs to be commended rather than criticized for endeavouring to take action which shows restraint in an area of great expenditure.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, the abundant natural resources of Canada provided the material foundation for our country, and immigration provided the human resources to build and develop this great land which is the envy of the world. Since the dawn of Canadian history, successive waves of immigrants have come to our land from every continent on this planet. Canada's population has in fact increased faster than that of any other industrialized country in the twentieth century.
I should like also to state that it was to a great extent the freedoms we enjoy in Canada as well as the economic prosperity, and lately the federal government's enlightened policy of multiculturalism, which has attracted so many immigrants to this land and also encouraged them to become full citizens. In fact the total intake of immigrants to Canada since 1945 is nearly 4 million. This new wave of immigration brought to us people with great experience of life, rich human values, and plenty of special skills which
(Mr. Orlikow.]
contributed immensely to our economic growth and prosperity.
It should also be noted that the net immigration since the end of the second world war is approximately 3 million or slightly less. However, from 1947 to 1971 only 1,529,853 Canadian citizenship certificates were granted by our courts.
Once upon a time, at least until 1967, we had in Canada a department of citizenship and immigration, and since 1967 citizenship comes under the Department of the Secretary of State. But it was only since 1970 that a great impetus was given to citizenship matters. In that year a revitalized program of citizenship was launched. It was based on a five point policy, namely, certain objectives such as the reinforcement of Canadian identity and national unity, the encouragement of cultural diversification within the bilingual framework, the preservation of human rights and fundamental freedoms, an increased and vastly improved citizenship participation program, and the development of meaningful symbols of Canadian sovereignty. As a result, in 1974 alone, 130,278 persons were granted Canadian citizenship certificates in our courts.
Later an outreach program to increase the number of people applying for citizenship and to make that process much easier was launched by our government. As a result, storefront citizenship offices and additional courts such as those in Parkdale's Dufferin Plaza, Kensington in the Spadina constituency, and at Montreal's Jean Talon Street added greatly to the number of applications.
Today the 21 citizenship judges have a very heavy overload to clear up, especially in the city of Toronto. More applicants will increase the workload for these courts with the advent of the new Citizenship Act, which was debated at second reading in this House and is now being studied by a House of Commons committee. This new enlightened legislation is not only liberal and progressive, but also very attractive to the people who are waiting to become Canadian citizens. I must say that this legislation is most welcome. The government and the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) are to be commended for bringing this piece of legislation to this House.
However, more funds for more qualified judges and support staff are needed without further delay. As I stated in my question to the Secretary of State last February 10, we are impatiently awaiting the appointment of more judges and staff in Toronto and other places where they are needed. The backlog must be cleared up quickly because qualified applicants are waiting to become Canadian citizens and to take their full place in the Canadian sun.
Any further undue delay would be denying the privileges of Canadian citizenship to many people. As the dictum goes, justice delayed is justice denied, and the sooner the necessary staff is provided for our citizenship courts, the better will be the morale of the present staff and also the earlier will Canada be strengthened with many more loyal citizens.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State of Canada (Mr. Faulkner) has been assured by the Registrar of Citizenship that the citizenship applications and certifi-
February 24, 1976

cate presentations in the Toronto area have been carefully looked into as a result of the hon. member's question. He has further been informed that the backlog alluded to is not as serious as suggested.
As an example and with reference to the St. Clair citizenship court, there were only 581 certificates on hand as of February 12, all of which will have been presented by February 26. For the information of this House it should be known that this particular citizenship court now has a scheduling whereby certificates are presented within 14 days of receipt from Ottawa. The 14 days in question are used for scheduling the ceremonies and informing the applicants.
With reference to the Dufferin court it had, as of February 12, some 726 certificates on hand, 400 of which will be distributed this month. Although another 300 certificates will have been received for presentation before the end of the month, this is not an unduly large number of certificates to have on hand in courts as large as the two to which I have referred.
In 1975, through our Toronto courts' system only, a total of over 49,000 grants of citizenship were made. This figure includes those grants made through storefront offices, the mobile team, and the subcourts in Oshawa, Brampton and Barrie. In addition to the large number of grants of citizenship processed by the Toronto citizenship court system, there were 36,391 proofs of citizenship given out in 1975. These proofs do not, of course, involve a court ceremony and presentation but nevertheless account for a large volume of work by court personnel.
I would also like to take the opportunity to say a word about the success of the citizenship outreach program, since I believe it has a bearing on the questions raised by the hon. member. The storefront concept was introduced in Toronto in July 1973, which means there have been two and a half years of storefront operation.
In 1975 there were 13,420 storefront grant applications, an increase of 21 per cent over the previous year. There were almost 4,000 proof applications processed in the storefront offices, a percentage increase of 53 per cent. There would seem, however, to be no need at the present time to increase staff in the Toronto court system beyond the filling of existing vacancies.
The effect of the outreach program has been to relieve the overburdened situation at the St. Clair office which, until 1973, was the only citizenship registration office in Toronto. With the opening of the Dufferin court in July, 1975, and with the outreach services provided by storefront and mobile operations, grants volume in the St. Clair court decreased by 10 per cent in 1975.
With respect to citizenship hearings, no backlog exists vis-a-vis the St. Clair court. There is, however, a one-month delay at the Dufferin court which involves approximately 600 applications. A delay in hearings also exists at Barrie and Brampton involving approximately 250 applicants. This situation will be corrected when a new citizenship judge is appointed.
Adjournment Debate


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION-ALLEGED INADEQUACY OF FRENCH LANGUAGE COVERAGE OF CONSERVATIVE CONVENTION
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked if the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) had been made aware of complaints concerning the inadequate French language television coverage of the Progressive Conservative convention and if it was the intention of the minister to remind the publicly financed Canadian Broadcasting Corporation of its primary responsibility to report in both official languages all public affairs of national interest. The minister replied that the corporation had a responsibility to report important events in both official languages on both channels.
Last Thursday the hon. member for Cumberland-Col-chester North (Mr. Coates) expressed his dissatisfaction with programmed CBC radio coverage in his area.
Earlier today the hon. member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) proposed, by way of a motion under Standing Order 43, to refer the subject to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts. The motion required unanimous consent which, unfortunately, was not forthcoming. I say unfortunately, because it is my opinion that a dissenting voice came from among the members of the party that was considerably disenchanted with the treatment accorded that party by the publicly owned television network.
During the question period today a member of the official opposition, I believe the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), again raised the subject of inadequate French language television coverage of the Progressive Conservative convention. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Miss Campbell) replied, giving information supplied by the CBC and which, in my opinion, was no answer at all. It was a reiteration of what programming there was and did not answer the question.
We are already aware of the amount of coverage accorded by the French network of the CBC. As Joan Irwin stated so well in an article in yesterday's Montreal Gazette, and I quote:
Both English networks made a major commitment to the Canadian public by providing an opportunity to participate in an important political event. They deserve our gratitude.
French-speaking Canadians, on the other hand, had almost no opportunity to acquaint themselves with the PC leadership candidates or with the political philosophies of a major national party at a crucial moment in its history.
It's not particularly surprising that TeleMetropole and the TVA network ignored the whole thing until the results of the voting were known.
It is surprising and entirely indefensible that the CBC French network showed so little interest in the convention or in the rights of its audience to be well informed on vital national issues.
Radio-Canada carried none of Saturday's convention live during the speeches of the 12 leadership candidates, despite the fact that three candidates were from Quebec-and two of them front-runners for the leadership.
Not until 11:10 p.m. (after the hockey game and the news) did Radio-Canada give its audience a glimpse of the convention, and then only in edited bits of each candidate's speech-of which many were poorly translated by an extremely uncertain male translator.

February 24, 1976
Adjournment Debate
On Sunday, Radio-Canada had intended to devote only the six to eight p.m. period to the convention. Then it said it would begin its coverage at four p.m.
Finally someone in the French network saw the light, and it was announced that Sunday's coverage would begin at 2:30 p.m.
The indecision and irresponsibility of the French network indicate an alarming narrowness of view and curious perception of the tax-supported corporation's obligations to the Canadian public-all the Canadian public.
The estimates have now been tabled. Included in those of the Secretary of State is the sum of $416 million for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, an increase over last year for operating expenditures alone of over $50 million.
Whenever I question the present Secretary of State, and also when I questioned his predecessor, I was lectured on independence and the inability of the Secretary of State to interfere. They argue that they have no legal right to meddle in the affairs on an independent corporation. Well, I have news for the Secretary of State. As long as taxpayers in my constituency see vast sums of their tax moneys being poured into a corporation which services only an average 11 per cent of the population, they are going to be on my back, and rightly so. In turn, I am going to expect the Secretary of State to come up with answers.
I am sure the minister will not forget the political indiscretion that I committed in 1973 by proposing in committee a nominal cut in the estimates to indicate that the politician still had some say in the publicly financed CBC. That motion passed with the help of some of my more experienced colleagues. Whilst I may not take such a step again, I do want to point out that there must be some established line of communication between those who spend the money and those who are responsible for paying the bills.
The Progressive Conservative party may not be strong in its parliamentary representation from Quebec, but its total
percentage vote in that province is healthy. However, apart from that party's supporters, there were those from all other parties and those with no political affiliation who wanted to watch the convention proceedings.
The English coverage extended over four days. It was generally well handled. Why were French Canadians shafted by the television channel which owes its very existence to the considerable financial support of the taxpayer; as I said earlier, $416 million?
May I request that an inquiry be instituted and a full statement made to all members of this House on this continuing saga of complete irresponsibility.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) has been informed by the CBC that the CBC French television network covered the final day of the convention, Sunday, February 24, from 2:30 p.m. to the end of the convention at 9:10 p.m.
On the Saturday of the convention, a resume of the speeches of the candidates was telecast from 11:10 p.m. until 12:40 a.m. A live telecast of the candidates' speeches would have involved five hours of almost continuous simultaneous translation which could have been a great strain for the television audience. The exigencies of production, i.e., the condensing in as polished a fashion as possible of the five hours from the afternoon, required a late evening scheduling of the resume.
The "Stanfield Evening" on the Friday of the convention was telecast in its entirety, and an hour of the Diefenbaker tribute was telecast on Thursday.
A total of 11 hours of the convention were scheduled on the CBC French television network as compared with eight and one half hours at the last Progressive Conservative convention in 1967.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.17 p.m.

Wednesday, February 25, 1976