1976-03-17

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Joe Flynn (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, I move under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That this House bring greetings to all members in the name of that great saint of piety and humour and that the blessings of St. Patrick shine over all of this wonderful Canada of ours.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have great difficulty in understanding how such blessings could be prevented from shining over this great Canada of ours whether or not we put the motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SUGGESTED MEETING WITH PROVINCES BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH BILL C-68-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to present a motion of pressing and urgent importance. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House urges the government not to proceed at this time with Bill C-68 but to delay any further proceedings thereon until after there has been a meeting of the Minister of National Health and Welfare with the health ministers of the provinces.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43 the motion cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.
Since the federal government should establish a long term policy to protect and stabilize the production of industrial milk, since this important industry should at least enjoy the same increase in income as other fields of activity to compensate for the cost of living instead of having their income reduced by some 20 per cent this year, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That, before the implementation of the government dairy policies for 1976-77, this House discuss immediately the necessity of respecting established quotas and having adequate measures to guarantee decent incomes which would at least take production costs into account and put a stop to the ever growing discouragement felt by those producers.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister acknowledged that he had the right to know the conversations between ministers that may involve any impropriety. On Monday, as indicated at page 11788 of Hansard the Prime Minister said:
I have not only the word of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs but also the public statement of the Minister of Public Works that he-

March 17, 1976
Oral Questions
Being the Minister of Public Works.
-did this-
Being the intervention.
-was not pushed to do it by anyone and that he-
The Minister of Public Works.
-took full responsibility.
My question is this. In light of the admission yesterday by the former minister, that he asked the Minister of Public Works to intervene, did the Prime Minister know about that request for intervention before Monday of this week? If not, when did he learn of that request for intervention?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ouellet told me about that precise request he made to the minister on Monday of this week.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question? The Prime Minister indicated that he conversed with the ministers involved. He now suggests that his conversations with the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs did not reveal that information, that is, that the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs had made the request of the Minister of Public Works. Just so that I can be clear, is the Prime Minister telling the House that for almost two weeks after Mr. Justice Mackay made his allegation, an allegation now clearly vindicated, that he, the Prime Minister, did not ask the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs if he had requested that intervention by the Minister of Public Works?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That is right. I got the answer from the minister on Monday, the day before yesterday, and I explained to the House yesterday why that was my line of conduct. As soon as Justice Mackay's letters were published or made public in the press, I wanted to, and did, ascertain from both ministers whether they had done anything which might be interpreted as illegally interfering with the court or impeding the course of justice. I got that assurance from them. Because I wanted to make sure that that was not a one-sided assurance, we followed the course which the Minister of Justice took, of asking the point of view of the courts on this matter: did they feel there had been any illegal interference. Until I had that judgment or assessment from Chief Justice Des-chenes on Thursday night, I did not attempt to know exactly, in all details, what went on between the two ministers.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister, as the only person responsible for the propriety of conduct of ministers, telling the House that the only question he put to the two ministers involved-and any others whom we do not know about but who might have been involved- was whether they thought they had been involved in an illegality? Did he ask whether they thought they had been involved in an illegality? Is that the only question he put to them?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker. I just answered that. I asked if there had been an illegality, or an improper attempt to interfere with the course of justice, or to influence a

decision, and so on. That was my concern. I wanted to make sure that there had been no attempt to interfere with the course of justice in any way which would be improper, illegal or considered unacceptable.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Or which could be considered as wrongdoing.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I got their answers and I wanted to hear from the chief justice what the point of view of the courts was on this.


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY- REASON PRIME MINISTER DID NOT QUESTION MINISTERS TO ASCERTAIN FACTS
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, this I find incredible. Will the Prime Minister, as the person responsible for the propriety of conduct of ministers, tell the House how he felt he had the right to sit back and wait for the courts to report on the matter, without asking detailed questions as to whether the allegations raised by Mr. Justice Mackay were in fact the case? What right did he have to sit back and avoid facing his ministers with the question as to what, precisely, they had done?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I felt that I had not only the right; I had the duty not to delve into this question, as it might have been-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -completely irrelevant to the allegations of Justice Mackay. The allegations of Justice Mackay were to the effect that there had been serious interference with the course of justice. I wanted to assure myself, from the ministers, that this was not the case. I did assume myself from the ministers that that was not the case. I even had the assurance it was not illegal and not improper. Mr. Drury, obviously, would not have done something he believed to be improper. I had his version of it and Mr. Ouellet's version. According to both their versions, there had not only been no illegality; there had been no impropriety. Obviously, Justice Deschenes and Justice Hugessen do not share that point of view. However, I prefer to get it from them rather than to just hear from Justice Mackay. It seems to be perfectly in order.


INQUIRY WHETHER TYPE OF APPROACH TO JUDICIARY BY MR. DRURY WILL BE PROHIBITED
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Minister of Public Works stated:
-I think the hon. gentleman would agree that a case before the courts in which the court itself appeared to be of the parties and a member of the executive being the other, carried out a full-scale battle based on a possible misunderstanding at the outset, would be an unnecessary confrontation, and any conflict based on this misunderstanding appears to me to be inappropriate and useless. It is the job of a public official to avoid this kind of thing if that can be done, and that is what I was seeking to do.
Will the Prime Minister assure us that he recognizes that that statement itself constitutes evidence of an attempt to influence the outcome of a court proceeding and, because
March 17, 1976

of the new so-called code of ethics, will be proscribed in the future?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as far as the code of ethics is concerned, I enunciated quite clearly on Friday rules which would indicate that in the future I do not expect that course to be followed. I have done that because it has been judged improper, because there has been an apology and so on. However, I must state, and I believe this is also Justice Hugessen's view, that the demarche of the Minister of Public Works was not viewed as something dishonourable. It was explained by Justice Hugessen on the contrary as something honourable, an effort by the executive and the judicial arm-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Hon. members can just refer to what Justice Hugessen said in his report to Chief Justice Des-chenes. He said he was convinced that the Minister of Public Works' initative was based on a desire to avoid a confrontation. To me, there is nothing dishonourable in that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REASON PRIME MINISTER DID NOT QUESTION MINISTERS ABOUT INTERVENTION WITH JUDGES
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In none of the letters released to the press two weeks ago today was there any reference to illegal behaviour by any minister. Will the Prime Minister explain why he did not put the direct non-legal question to the ministers about whom allegations had been made, to the Minister of Public Works on the one hand "Did you or did you not intervene with the judge on behalf of the former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs" and to that minister, "Did you or did you not ask the Minister of Public Works to intervene on your behalf".


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I saw in those letters, as did members opposite, that in fact the Minister of Public Works had spoken to Justice Hugessen. This was alleged by Justice Mackay. Naturally, I asked the Minister of Public Works was this so, what was he trying to do and was he trying to do something improper, as Justice Mackay alleged he was interfering in the course of justice. I think that is the expression used by Justice Mackay. I wanted to assure myself that in the view of the Minister of Public Works, he was not trying to obtain a different or better decision, but trying to make sure that any conflict between an individual and the courts, a confrontation as was just described in the previous question, would be avoided, if possible.
At that stage, I addressed myself to the Minister of Public Works, since he was mentioned in Justice Mackay's letter. I also addressed myself to the Minister of National Health and Welfare because he too was mentioned in the letter, even though his interventions in 1970 were not made as a minister, but as an official.


An hon. Member:: It took some time.
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, it took some time. I think that is very relevant. As the hon. member looks at the dossier, he might ask himself why Justice Mackay took that length of time to be indignant about it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the hon. member looks at the dossier he might ask himself why Justice Mackay took that length of time to become indignant about it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I addressed myself to the third minister who was brought into question by Mr. Justice Mackay, the then minister of consumer and corporate affairs. I must confess I do not remember asking questions immediately of the minister of consumer and corporate affairs. I am sorry the President of the Treasury Board was the third one. Mr. Justice Mackay does not mention the hon. member for Papineau except in passing, as he mentioned my name in a way in which hon. members have been, I guess, gracious enough or wise enough not even to refer to. I remember that the hon. member for Papineau had indeed talked to me and presumably asked advice of many other colleagues and friends at the time of his trial. But his name was not brought into play by Mr. Justice Mackay in any improper way. I do not remember whether in those days I asked anything further of the hon. member for Papineau.


John Edward Broadbent: I must say, and I make this comment most seriously, that I find the Prime Minister's answer extraordinary. If, as I understand it, the Prime Minister had posed a direct question two weeks ago to the three ministers most directly involved and got honest and direct answers, even the information which has since been published, does the right hon. gentleman not realize that no reference for a report need have been made to the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Quebec? Such a reference would not have been necessary had he obtained that information directly and conveyed it honestly to the House.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I reported to the House at the time that I had asked the question directly and I had the opinion of the ministers that they had not done anything illegal, that they had not done anything which, in their minds, appeared to be even improper. Hon. members heard the President of the Treasury Board explain the circumstances under which he made a phone call. He did not tell me he had done something improper. He felt at the time he was doing his duty to his electorate. The courts have a different opinion and that is why I issued the rules. The same applies to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and to the Minister of Public Works. It would be unthinkable that they would do something deliberately which they knew would be improper and which would get them into trouble with the judge.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Members opposite do not have to take my word for it. They just have to take what Justice Hugessen himself sees as the reason for the intervention by the Minister of Public Works; he says he thinks it was done

March 17, 1976
Oral Questions
with the best of intentions. I believe the judge uses the same expression in reference to the Minister of National Health and Welfare; he says he did it for reasons of state and not for personal advantage. So when I got this kind of answer from the ministers I took it at face value-and this is the value which the judges themselves are putting on it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: With specific reference to the hon. member for Papineau, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether or not he put the following direct question to that minister: Did you urge the Minister of Public Works to intervene with the judge on your behalf? If the right hon. gentleman did not ask that question, I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman this: did he not leave the House for two weeks with the impression that that question had been posed, and, consequently, does he not leave his office open to the very serious charge that there has been two weeks of attempted cover-up concerning this matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have no doubt in my mind that that is the charge the hon. member is attempting to establish. But he has my answers during those two weeks in which I made it quite clear that I asked the ministers whether they had acted illegally or improperly. Having ascertained from them that they had not-


Charles Joseph Clark: In their judgment.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In their judgment, I said.


Charles Joseph Clark: Not in your judgment.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not in my judgment, Mr. Speaker. But it is because our judgment might conceivably be put in doubt by the other side that I found it fit and proper to ask the courts, through the Minister of Justice, what was their version of the facts. Until that was obtained I was satisfied with the response of my ministers, and as I indicated to the House yesterday I did not feel that I had, to use the words that have been used, the right and duty to get into all aspects of this question. So far as conversations between ministers having anything to do with illegality or even, in their view, impropriety, I do not feel I have a right to know every detail.


REQUEST FOR INQUIRY TO DETERMINE IF JUDGES INTERFERED WITH GOVERNMENT
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Since the official opposition as well as the NDP are requesting an inquiry into the behaviour of two cabinet ministers in order to clear this whole matter, and we share their opinion, does the Prime Minister believe that such an inquiry would help unclog the business of the House and does he not also think that it would be advisable in conducting this inquiry to have certain judges appear before the same committee to determine precisely whether there has been any interference from them into the affairs of ministers or government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The leader of the Social Credit Party of Canada is referring to one of the difficulties I pointed out yesterday in the House. He is indeed asking the question, as I did myself in the House, whether an inquiry might be made and must be made by Parliament, that is the legislative branch of the government, on the conduct of the judges. Do we have the right to summon them here to answer on their conduct? The hon. member seems to think so. Anyway, I heard someone say yes. I do not think this is so sure, Mr. Speaker, and I do not think that it is sure either that judges would feel compelled to answer the call of Parliament to appear before us and testify, unless it is under the impeachment procedure. What seems rather strange to me in all this, since now the facts are known and those arguments explained, is that hon. members in the opposition keep complaining about interference by the executive with the judiciary, while they are quite in a hurry to urge interference by the legislative with the judiciary. This does not seem very consistent.


SUGGESTED ATTEMPT TO LEARN CONVERSATION WITH MR. TURNER CONCERNING INTERVENTION WITH JUDGE-REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Judges have certainly appeared before public inquiries before, Mr. Speaker, but on a different subject completely may I address my question to the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Not so.


An hon. Member:: Give an example.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I can give an example if hon. members want: a former justice, Mr. Justice Landreville for one. In any event Mr. Turner, the former minister of justice told a television reporter on Monday that he learned a lot because he "keeps his mouth shut". Now that the Prime Minister concedes that the conversations related to at least an act of impropriety, has the Prime Minister attempted to pry his version of these events out of Mr. Turner?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the question must have been asked in jest. Mr. Turner was no longer a member of the cabinet when the contempt of court proceedings were initiated. When I say that conversations between private individuals as far as I am concerned are privileged, and that I have no right to pry into them, surely that applies also to the former Minister of Justice and former finance minister.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, because there is an act of admitted impropriety here, and because there is no allegation that Mr. Turner acted improperly but was a party to conversations leading up to that impropriety, surely his credibility as a witness to the question of intent is valuable and would be valuable in the public interest. Will the Prime Minister now allow an independent investigation which could gather such evidence from such witnesses?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
March 17, 1976


REQUEST FOR CONTENT OF CONVERSATION BETWEEN MR OUELLET AND MR. DRURY CONCERNING INTERVENTION WITH JUDGE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, we are getting information in little bits and pieces and having to pry them out. I should like to put this question to the Prime Minister which might shorten this whole problem. Yesterday the Prime Minister told the House that "parliament also has that right" which he possesses to examine conversations between ministers "when there is any wrongdoing". He went on to state that on the part of the Minister of Public Works there was in fact "an element of wrongdoing". This being the case, is the Prime Minister now prepared to inform the House of the exact nature of the conversations between the Minister of Public Works and the former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs? If we get these facts then surely we will know where we stand.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the then Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs stated what he had asked the Minister of Public Works. Therefore, the facts are now before the House. They were not before the House until then because, and I repeat, we were waiting for Mr. Justice Deschenes' view of those facts. It was our intention to get the view and the appreciation of the courts on what had happened. Obviously, the actors involved on this side had not done anything which they then considered to be improper. If the courts judged differently then we were bound to take into consideration their assessment of it, and it is because of that that I enunciated new rules on Friday. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, the facts the opposition has been trying to get have been made known in so far as they were relevant to this case. If the hon. member is interested in gossip or irrelevant things which might have been said between those two ministers or any others he will not get them from me and I hope he will not get them from the others. Similarly with a court of inquiry, it would only ask questions which are relevant to some form of misconduct.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REASON PRIME MINISTER DID NOT SECURE FULL DETAILS OF CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN MINISTERS CONCERNING INTERVENTION WITH JUDGE
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: This is most interesting, Mr. Speaker, but I am not interested in gossip.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am interested in knowing what the Prime Minister had to say and what the ministers had to say to him in reference to the matters which are relevant to this issue. Perhaps I could put this question to the Prime Minister then. The Prime Minister went on to state that he did not find "the exact details" of conversations between ministers in this regard "satisfactory", and that is to be found at page 11846 of Hansard. Can the Prime Minister tell this House why he did not seek a full clarification of detail from his ministers when he first learned of the affair since he, and not the Chief Justice, bears the responsibility
Oral Questions
for the conduct of his ministers? The Chief Justice has said that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have the impression that the hon. member is asking the same question in a different form. I have given the facts as they were relevant at the time, and as it became more important for me to know further facts about the private conversations, and as that became apparent to me after Justice Deschenes' report on what the Court viewed as improper conduct, I obtained those facts as far as I could and made them known to the House. They were made known to the House yesterday.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister tell us the exact date he found out those facts, because it seems to me he waited an awful long time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member reviews the blues he will see that I gave the exact date.


POSSIBILITY PRIME MINISTER MISLED BY MINISTERS CONCERNING CONVERSATIONS ABOUT INTERVENTION WITH JUDGE
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to follow up on the questions of the hon. member for Calgary North. Can the Prime Minister tell this House how it is possible for him to find these versions presented by the ministers "satisfactory" on March 10, as indicated at page 11660 of Hansard, and "not satisfactory" on March 16, that is yesterday, as indicated at page 11846? Is the Prime Minister implying that his ministers misled him with regard to the details or intent of their conversations, or is it his opinion that they were merely suffering from one of those lapses of memory which the Prime Minister persists in in smearing the reputation of a judge of the Superior Court of Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, they were not lapses of memory. They gave me answers to what I asked of them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In between the two dates mentioned by the hon. member there was the publishing, the sending to the Minister of Justice and the tabling in the House of Chief Justice Deschenes' report.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, did the Prime Minister then studiously avoid seeking the exact details of the conversations between the Minister of Public Works and the former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs following the letter of Mr. Justice Mackay which states that "After Mr. Ouellet asked Mr. John Turner to intervene on his behalf with the judge presiding over the contempt of court proceedings and was promptly rebuffed, he approached Mr. Drury with more success-"? Did he get the facts dealing with these particular questions of the minister?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, but things that were not relevant, like what the then Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said to Mr. Turner, were none of my business and I

Oral Questions
did not attempt to know them. What he might have asked of other ministers I did not attempt to find out either. I happen to know what he asked of me and there was nothing illegal or improper about it. In so far as what he might have asked of ministers who were brought into the issue by Justice Mackay's letter, I did ask him those questions and I have given the answers as I obtained them.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the President of the Treasury Board.
Since the Anti-Inflation Board recognized last Thursday that the additional compensation paid to civil servants appointed to positions that are classified or designated as bilingual was acceptable, and since the board admitted that the government's agreement to pay that bonus went back well before October 15, 1975, can the President of the Treasury Board inform the House whether he intends to table in the House the correspondence received by the Anti-Inflation Board, when the civil servants appointed to positions designated as bilingual will receive that additional compensation and whether that compensation will be retroactive to January 1, 1976?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked me three questions. First of all, as regards the correspondence, I do not have it in my possession. I do not know if it would be appropriate to table it, because it also involves the union which represents those employees. We intend to continue our negotiations with the union to find an adequate solution and only after those negotiations are over will I be in a position to say when the program can be implemented and whether it will be retroactive.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister indicated prior to the receipt of the report of the Chief Justice of Quebec that he would not rule out a public inquiry into the matter, yet after receipt he has elected not to go to a public inquiry. There seems to be one matter where there is significant difference in terms of the three instances of alleged attempted interference, and that is the matter of the Sir George Williams University case. Will the Prime Minister advise the House how the public will be able to resolve in its own mind the clear contradiction between the report of Mr. Justice Mackay that there was an attempt to interfere with the date that the decision would be taken in the case, and the indication from the

minister, and he was not a minister at that time, that in fact it was merely an inquiry about the date of the case? How can the public be satisfied without some kind of further statement on that clear contradiction?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that if they seek satisfaction they might read Justice Deschenes' report which, on the issue itself, says that he considers it closed, that it is something that was not obviously serious enough six years ago to have given rise to any kind of complaint to the chief justice. The second thing is, I suppose, that people will realize members opposite and others are particularly insistent about interferences by ministers with judges, and then they will suddenly remember, as the member does, that the man was not a minister then, but an official, and the whole issue would really-


An hon. Member:: Of your office.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of my office, who was asking on behalf of the Undersecretary of State for External Affairs, a pretty high official in the government. Mr. Speaker, given those facts-


An hon. Member:: What was in your mind at that time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The loudmouth over there might like to stand up and ask a question.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister had responsibility at that time, as I understand it, would he advise the House whether he believes the conduct of his then official was proper if the version given by Mr. Justice Mackay is correct.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think I have a very simple answer to that hypothetical question. It was given by Justice Deschene himself who does not tell us if he finds his version correct or not. But assuming that he does, he says that the case was unusual-insolite. He goes no further and he closes the case.


REASON PRIME MINISTER CAN IGNORE REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, having been given some cause in recent days to recall the generally acknowledged principle enunciated with such effectiveness by Lord Acton to the effect that while power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely, I should like to ask the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Donald W. Munro: I should like to ask the Prime Minister


Some hon. Members:: Louder.


Donald W. Munro: -whether he considers that because of the absolute power he exercises over his party he can ignore in an equally absolute fashion the
March 17, 1976

wishes of Parliament and the country for a public inquiry into the matter of how his ministers have been conducting themselves vis-a-vis the judiciary.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Simcoe North.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Donald W. Munro: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF GUIDELINES FOR PROFESSIONAL FEES
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. I want to thank him for sending the brief over to me. In view of the confusion in respect of the incentives and disincentives to professional practitioners and others that limit their increase to $2400, I should like to ask the minister if he can clear up the anomaly. Specifically, if a doctor should double his income is he then limited to $2400 or to $4800.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the response to this would have to be found in section 28 of the compensation regulations under the AntiInflation Act and in particular subsection (e). Perhaps I could refer the hon. gentleman to this. In the case of a practitioner being able to establish that in the current year he either worked longer hours or by a change in professional practice upgraded the kind of service he was rendering he would, under those circumstances, be able to increase his income beyond the $2400 limit. Obviously if he were doing the same amount the same kind of work as he had in previous years, he would be restrained within the $2400 limit.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask whether it would be possible to have this regulation printed in simple language that the ordinary citizen could understand.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to do so and perhaps even in language that a medical doctor could understand.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put to the President of the Treasury Board a question that follows from the questions of the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont which I find most relevant.
Could he tell the House whether he is prepared to recommend a bilingualism bonus for bilingual civil servants?
Oral Questions


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have never spoken of such a thing as a bonus for bilingualism. We merely said we would consider each bilingual job and, when the work of the employee concerned who has to work in both official languages, becomes more complicated because it involves using both languages, we would then add points to his job classification. That is what we intend to do after negotiations with the unions are completed.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
In view of the minister's reply about additional points, could he tell the House whether he means amounts of money or so many more percentage points in salary?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, those points will be assessed like any other point. When a civil servant is required to type, he is given so many points; if required to write, he is given so many more. If he has to use both languages, he will be given still more. If the total number of points warrants an increase in salary, so much the better for him; if not, too bad.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I see I have his attention now. The Prime Minister has claimed that the conduct of the Minister of Public Works "was not complained of by the judge at the time". However, I should like to point out that Mr. Justice Hugessen stated that rightly or wrongly he did not take any action with regard to the call which he described as "improper". Is the Prime Minister now prepared to concede that the failure of Mr. Justice Hugessen to report the action taken by the Minister of Public Works cannot and should not be construed as an exoneration of that action.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, if that action is the failure to report I do not want to sit in judgment over Mr. Justice Hugessen's failure to report, except that it did reveal a state of mind on the part of the judge that he did not consider this serious enough to be viewed as interference with the course of justice.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Prime Minister that the Associate Chief Justice indicated that the conduct was improper and subsequently the Chief Justice went further and said that matter was grave. I ask the Prime Minister how he can justify his conduct in not wanting a full inquiry when in fact the implication is by one judge that the conduct was improper and another judge thought it was extremely serious by way of being grave. How can he justify that there is no implication that there should be a full inquiry in respect of this matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the question flips over halfway through. At the outset I was asked how I could justify

March 17, 1976
Oral Questions
it. The answer is that I do not justify it. There was an apology; there was an offer of resignation; there was a condemnation by me in a statement that I did not accept this as good judgment on the part of the minister. If I do not justify it, I blame it, Mr. Speaker. That is the answer to the first part of the question. The second part of the question has been dealt with ad nauseum. If the hon. member wants to know the answer I will give it again, but he might prefer to read Hansard of yesterday afternoon.


REFUSAL OF PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO ALLEGED INTERFERENCE WITH JUDICIARY BY MINISTERS-OTHER MEANS OF OBTAINING FACTS
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said in the House last Friday that all the facts were now known. In view of the fact that we do not have the facts as to whether or not the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs asked the Minister of Public Works to intervene, in view of the fact that we do not have the facts as to whether or not any other ministers were involved or, to use the words of the Minister of Public Works, whether public-spirited citizens were also involved, and since we do not have the facts with reference to the discrepancy between the statement of the Minister of National Health and Welfare regarding why he interviewed Mr. Justice MacKay and Mr. Justice MacKay's statement to the chief justice when he said, "I feel I was being asked to see that the jury's decision was delayed", and since these are facts which we do not have, I ask the Prime Minister will he launch a judicial inquiry? If not, will he tell the House how the people of Canada and members of parliament can secure the facts which we do not have and which are necessary if the ministers themselves are to be above public suspicion.
e (1450)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With all due respect, the question is substantially the same as that put by the hon. member for New Westminster and other hon. members.


ROLE OF PUBLIC-SPIRITED CITIZENS AND CONTENT OF CONVERSATION BETWEEN MR. DRURY AND MR. OUELLET CONCERNING INTERVENTION WITH JUDGE
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, if you want me to put the question directly, I will put the question directly. I will put the question to the Minister of Public Works. I will ask the minister if the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs requested him to intervene with Mr. Justice Hugessen regarding the appeal case. I will also ask him, who are the public-spirited citizens to whom he referred, and what role did they play in this matter?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, in relation to the second part of the question-[DOT] who were the public-spirited citizens, and what did they do-that has relevance to an inquiry as to the conduct of the judges, not of the ministry and not of parliament. I think the Prime Minister has made it quite clear that the government does not believe it is appropriate for us to institute an inquiry into the conduct of judges or the

judiciary. The Minister of Justice has invited the Chief Justice to express his concerns to him, which he has done, and the role of public-spirited citizens in this event, as far as the Chief Justice was concerned, does not seem to have been a concern. I do not think it is appropriate for parliament to move in and say, "It should have been your concern and we are taking it up for you". I do not want to be a party to that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The
Minister has not answered the question. I asked him a direct question. Your Honour ruled that my question was a repetition. I asked a different question. I asked the minister if he had been requested by the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs to intervene. He gave a long lecture as to what the Prime Minister meant by something he said the other day, but he did not answer my direct question. Did he or did he not receive a request from his former colleague to intervene with Mr. Justice Hugessen? That is a simple question.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am sorry, but apparently the hon. member cannot have been in the House yesterday. The appropriate person to whom to direct that question is the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: That is pure sophistry. That is a Trudeauism.


Mr. Forrestall:: What are you hiding?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Some hon. members regard that answer as a cover up.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: And for the applauders I may say that my concept of that is an invitation to me to be a tattletale.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: It is an invitation to me to gossip, and it is an invitation which I do not really feel inclined to accept.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. John Roberts (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the recent demonstrations before the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation of Canadian actors and actresses protesting the importation of an American actress to play the part of Nellie McClung on CBC television, I wonder if the minister would tell the House whether he will undertake to examine with his department the present immigration regulations to ensure that the position of Canadian entertainers, actors, actresses and musicians is suffficiently protected by the present immigration regulations.
March 17, 1976


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly pay close attention to the representations of the hon. member. We have taken the view that, with regard to the areas of entertainment and this artistic performance, that we have to be extremely careful about imposing our judgment on the competence or the ability of Canadians or foreigners to perform those roles and also the question of making available to Canadians such outstanding talent as might be available from abroad or from within Canada. However, I will consider the representations of the hon. member.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, in order to save the Prime Minister further grief, I should like to put a question to him which could bring this whole mess to an abrupt end.


Some hon. Members:: Resign.


Otto John Jelinek: In view of the fact that in recent months we have seen two senior cabinet ministers resign and, according to the press, at least two others attempted to do likewise, and because of the fact that the Prime Minister said yesterday, and I quote, "I will be judged on my actions by not only the members opposite but by the country," I wonder if the Prime Minister, after having been judged yesterday by all three opposition parties, would now be in a position at this critical time of serious moral and economic crisis, while attempting to hold the remnants of his government together, to go to the people of Canada in order to give them an opportunity, as the Prime Minister himself said, to judge for themselves?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can take the hon. member into my confidence and tell him that I am going to see the Governor General tonight- as I do every Wednesday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGED PRESSURE ON DR. CONNOLLY TO WITHDRAW CHARGES AGAINST WHITEHORSE
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Since there appears to be substantial evidence involving officials of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Department of National Health and Welfare regarding threatening a civil servant of the Minister of National Health and Welfare with his job unless he withdrew charges he had laid, is the minister going to cause an investigation into those circumstances, which were raised in this place on March 4 and in committee on March 10, with a view to laying charges under section 127 of the
Oral Questions
Criminal Code against the officials of both departments involved?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, at least as far as I am advised, my officials have no information about such a threat. Of course, if the hon. member has, I would welcome that information. He may want to ask my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, with regard to the officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare.


Erik Nielsen: The information was placed on the record on March 4 by the right hon. member for Prince Albert, which, according to my information, is accurate. I would be very happy to be the first person interviewed by the RCMP and to supply them with the information I have. However, I am asking the minister whether he will consult with his colleague and have that investigation commenced because there certainly appears to be sufficient evidence for charges to be laid under section 127 of the Criminal Code.


Stanley Ronald Basford: That is not my information, but I will examine this matter and see whether there is any material which should be referred to the Solicitor General for his consideration.


ALLEGATION COMMISSIONER SMITH WAS PARTY TO PRESSURE ON DR. CONNOLLY TO WITHDRAW CHARGES AGAINST WHITEHORSE
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, now that we have moved from dial a judge to dial a doc, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice if he has had an opportunity to refer to the minutes of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development of March 10 in which officials of that department alluded to the fact that there is a distinct possibility that Commissioner Smith was in fact a party to the pressures applied to Dr. Connolly.


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not. I, of course, naturally will.


PERSON WHO REQUESTED MR. LALONDE TO INTERVIEW JUDGE MACKAY DURING TRIAL OF STUDENTS FROM TRINIDAD
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister inform the House on whose instructions did his then chief executive assistant, now the Minister of National Health and Welfare, approach Mr. Justice Mackay during the trial on the Trinidad students? My question, Mr. Speaker, is specifically was it on the Prime Minister's instructions and if not, who gave the instructions?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind repeating an answer which is now some weeks old. The principal secretary was asked by the Department of External Affairs, namely the Under Secretary of State for External Affairs, then I believe Mr. Ritchie, who phoned my office to find out if we could be of some assistance to a friendly government in this matter. As the minister indicated, I was then travelling in the Canadian Arctic on an official trip on the way to the Yellowknife games in 1971-1970 and the principal secre-

March 17, 1976
Message from the Senate
tary took it upon himself, after having been requested in this way, to seek out an answer that was requested of us through the Department of External Affairs from a friendly government.


An hon. Member:: Where was Mitchell?


REQUEST FOR INQUIRY ON THE INFLUENCES OF JUDICIARY IN THE POLITICAL FIELD
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Considering that the House is becoming more and more paralyzed by the interference of the executive in the judiciary and that hon. members from all sides of this House seem to act as offended virgins, would the Prime Minister agree to order a complete inquiry on the mutual influences of the judicial and political powers; this would enable us to know some of the 300,000 good reasons which can prompt a judge to leave his position to get a seat in this honourable House.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fourteenth report of Standing Committee on Agriculture-Mr. Daudlin.

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the table the twenty-fifth report of the Clerk of Petitions stating he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) and finds it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill S-31, to amend the Quarantine Act, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.


PRIVILEGE
Mr.   Jean-R. Roy@Timmins: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege which is prompted by the events of the last few days and an article in the Globe and Mail of today, March 17, written by William Johnson in which he states:
Significantly, all the Quebec members of parliament rallied around Mr. Ouellet at a special caucus meeting of the Liberal members on Monday night when he was assailed for his role in the judges affair by Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West), Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough), Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville), Jean-R. Roy (Timmins) and Iona Campagnolo (Skeena).


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Roy (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, I deny categorically ever assailing at any time the former minister, and state Mr. Johnson's report in my regard to be an absolute lie. Indeed, the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury), who was also mentioned, was not even present at the meeting.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Robert Roy: Mr. Speaker, this irresponsible reporting by the Globe and Mail seems to me consistent with the bankrupt journalism of this newspaper-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Robert Roy: -and so my question of privilege is this: any reporter who is so irresponsible should be denied access to the press gallery-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Robert Roy: -and any such newspaper supporting such a reporter should also be denied the privileges of the press gallery.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) on the same question of privilege.


Mr. Francis:: On the same question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the reference in the article concerning myself is false.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Abbott) rising on the same question of privilege?


Mr. Abbott:: On the same question of privilege, recognizing the error of the correspondents for the Globe and Mail-


An hon. Member:: As usual.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: -and tempering justice with mercy, I would ask that they be permitted to frequent the parlia-
March 17, 1976

mentary press gallery provided they do not commit the sins that they have in the recent past.


Charles Joseph Clark: Three more.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) rising on the same question of privilege? The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) on the same question of privilege.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it would be only fair, in the course of things, if we kept these proceedings open until tomorrow so that those named today who are not present could also come to confession.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With regard to the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Roy) and others who have contributed and have raised what seems to have the stature of a question of privilege, I am sure, having reference to the clear scope of the explicit, classical definition of privilege of members of parliament that has been repeated many times in the past, the House will understand if I do not find there is a prima facie question of privilege.


MOTION TO ADJOURN
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the continuing refusal of the government to appoint an independent inquiry into the sorry mess that is still before us, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House do now adjourn.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is on the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), seconded by the hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), that the House do now adjourn. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
Motion to Adjourn


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 3,832, 3,935, 3,987, 4,064, 4,114 and 4,152.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton): 1.	How much was spent to send Major Carroll and his staff and designers from Information Canada/Expositions to visit more than 75 museums across North America and Europe in the course of researching the design for the Bank of Canada's new money museum?
2.	What has been the total cost of the three years of research and planning that has gone into the design of the new money museum?
3.	How much has been allotted for the purchase of display material including coins and paper money for the museum?
4.	What is the total expected cost of the new money museum, including research, planning and construction phases of the project?
5.	What private contracts have and will be let with regard to the design and eventual construction of the new money museum?


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: I am informed by the Bank of Canada as follows: 1.	$10,900.
2.	Total budget for research and designcosts is $201,000.
3.	Over the last 15 years approximately $1,300,000 has been spent by the Bank of Canada on acquisitions of notes and coin for the National Currency Collection.
4.	The National Currency Museum will be housed in the existing building of the Bank of Canada. The budget for the construction and equipping of the museum as such is $588,000.
5.	Contract for construction work let to Ellis-Don Limited. The Expositions Directorate, formerly of Information Canada, is expected to be responsible for the fabrication of display facilities but no contracts have yet been let.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	How many fisheries guardians were employed in the Province of Newfoundland in (a) 1975 (b) 1974 (c) 1973 (d) 1972 (e) 1971 (f) 1970?
2.	What was their term of employment?
3.	Are they eligible for unemployment insurance benefits after termination of their employment and, if so, has any consideration been given to setting up familiarization courses into anti-pollution measures or anti-poaching measures, rather than laying them off?
4.	Has any consideration been given to providing instruction to fisheries guardians in the use of firearms and to allow them to carry firearms while on duty?
5.	Is compensation provided for meals when fisheries guardians are away from their home base on duty and, if so (a) in what amount (b) for how long has such meal allowance been in existence?
6.	What is the meal allowance for (a) fisheries wardens (b) all fisheries officials when away from their home base?
7.	Has there been an increase in poaching activity in the Atlantic Region and, if so, what measures have been taken by the Department of the Environment to prevent poaching?
8.	How much money under the 1976-77 estimates has been allocated to increase the number of fisheries wardens and guardians?
9.	Has any consideration been given, on the basis of the cost of living increase, to increasing the meal allowance for fisheries guardians and, if not, for what reason?
10.	Have any studies been carried out to assess the number of fisheries wardens and/or guardians required to provide adequate surveillance measures in the Province of Newfoundland and (a) if so, what were the findings (b) if not, for what reason?
11 By province, how many poachers have been apprehended in the Atlantic Region in (a) 1970 (b) 1971 (c) 1972 (d) 1973 (e) 1974 (f) 1975?


Mr. George Baker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment and Minister of Fisheries):: 1. The
number of fisheries guardians employed in Newfoundland for the years 1975 to 1970 inclusive are as follows: (a) 1975: 169; (b) 1974: 185; (c) 1973: 185; (d) 1972: 186; (e) 1971: 151; (f) 1970: 105.
2.	The term of employment normally varies between a minimum of three months to a maximum of five months depending on the area and the requirements of the particular position.
3.	Guardians are eligible for Unemployment Insurance Benefits if they have met the required number of contributory weeks. Familiarization courses have not been considered for fisheries guardians on terrr;"ation of their employment as funds are not available for this purpose and in addition the turnover in these employees is such that it would be impractical.
4.	Consideration has not been given to providing instruction to fisheries guardians in the use of firearms as it is not deemed to be necessary nor would it be practical in view of the length of the employment period and the annual turnover in staff.
5.	(a) Meal allowances are provided for fisheries guardians away from their home base on duty in accordance with the rates laid down by the Treasury Board Travel Regulations, (b) This allowance has been applied since its inception.
6.	Meal allowance for all fisheries staff when away from their home base on duty are at the rates provided under the Treasury Board Travel Regulations.
7.	An assessment of overall poaching activity can at best only provide an estimate of the level of this activity. In
March 17, 1976

Newfoundland for the years 1970-1974 there was very little change in the pattern or level of illegal fishing but during 1975 there was a marked increase. For the most part this was due to low water conditions and the fact that most of the rivers in that province were closed during the salmon angling season. Throughout the Atlantic area poaching usually develops into a major problem in particular locations and this requires the deployment of additional staff during these critical periods. Such temporary transfers of staff are the principal measures used to control particular problems and are found to be quite effective.
8.	No additional funds have been allocated in the 1976-77 estimates to increase the number of fisheries wardens and guardians and it is most unlikely that there will be any change in this regard in view of the budgetary constraints that are being applied generally.
9.	Treasury Board reviews meal allowance rates on a regular basis and adjusts them accordingly to compensate for changes in the cost of living.
10.	The requirements in terms of staff to provide an adequate enforcement and surveillance capability throughout Newfoundland are constantly under review. During 1975 a total of 65 fishery wardens and 169 fishery guardians were employed. Although conditions experienced in 1975 were probably extreme, a modest increase in staff for both classes of employee may be necessary and will be considered in planning for future staff requirements.
11.	Information on the numbers of poachers apprehended in Newfoundland for the period 1970 to 1975 inclusive is as follows: (a) 1970, 238; (b) 1971, 202; (c) 1972, 210; (d) 1973, 201; (e) 1974, 239; (f) 1975, 420. The same information by province is only available from the Maritimes Region for the years 1974 and 1975 and is as follows:
		Prince
Nova	New	EdwardScotia	Brunswick	Island149	295	36174	263	54
Total apprehensions for the Maritimes Region for the period 1970 to 1975, excluding Newfoundland, is as follows: (a) 1970, 526; (b) 1971, 470; (c) 1972, 485; (d) 1973, 492; (e) 1974, 480; (f) 1975, 491.


Mr. Firth: 1.	What is the range of services offered by the Post Office Department to each community in the Northwest Territories?
2.	Are certain services available at some post offices and not at others and, if so, what is the criteria used for this decision?


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: Name of	Type of	General	Lock Box	WicketCommunity	Post Office	Delivery	Service	ServiceAklavik	Accounting	X	X	XArctic Bay	Non-Accounting	X	XArctic Red River	Accounting	X	XBaker Lake	Accounting	X	XBroughton Island	Non-Accounting	X	XCambridge Bay	Accounting	X	X	X
Order Paper Questions
Name of	Type of	General	Lock Box	WicketCommunity	Post Office	Delivery	Service	ServiceCap. Dorset	Non-Accounting	X	XChesterfield Inlet	Accounting	X	XClyde	Non-Accounting	X	XCoppermine	Accounting	X	XCoral Harbour	Accounting	X	XEskimo Point	Accounting	X	XEureka	Non-Accounting	X	XFort Franklin	Accounting	X	XFort Good Hope	Accounting	X	XFort Liard	Non-Accounting	X	XFort McPherson	Accounting	X	X	XFort Norman	Accounting	X	XFort Providence	Accounting	X	XFort Resolution	Accounting	X	XFort Simpson	Accounting	X	X	XFort Smith	Accounting	X	X	XFrobisher Bay	Accounting	X	X	XGjoa Haven	Accounting	X	XGrise Fiord	Non-Accounting	X	XHall Beach	Non-Accounting	X	XHay River	Accounting	X	X	XHolman	Accounting	X	XIgloolik	Non-Accounting	X	XInuvik	Accounting	X	X	XIsachsen	Non-Accounting	X	XLake Harbour	Non-Accounting	X	XMould Bay	Non-Accounting	X	XMP0 310 Belleville	Accounting	X	XNorman Wells	Accounting	X	X	XPangnirtung	Non-Accounting	X	XPelly Bay	Accounting	X	XPine Point	Accounting	X	X	XPort Burwell	Non-Accounting	X	XPort Radium	Accounting	X	XRae	Accounting	X	XRankin Inlet	Accounting	X	XRepulse Bay	Accounting	X	XResolute	Non-Accounting	X	XSachs Harbour	Accounting	X	XSnowdrift	Accounting	X	XSpence Bay	Accounting	X	XTuktoyaktuk	Accounting	X	X	XTungsten	Accounting	X	XWhale Cove	Accounting	X	XWrigley	Non-Accounting	X	XYellowknife	Accounting	X	X	XPond Inlet	Non-Accounting	X	X
2. All post offices other than sub post offices provide basically the same range of services. There are some differences, however, in the extent of services, e.g. not all post offices provide lock-box rentals and the criteria in this case would be demand, available space, and equipment. Non-accounting post offices cannot accept C.O.D, mailings, but can deliver C.O.D.'s and collect the charges. Also, postmasters at non-accounting post offices do not sell money orders, but can arrange for their purchase through an accounting post office.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion ever granted money for public works in the Constituency of Roberval and, if so, in what amount?
2.	For each such grant what was the (a) nature of the project (b) amount granted (c) municipality concerned?
11878

March 17, 1976
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. Yes, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has committed $2,544,453 under the ARDA III program for public works in the Constituency of Roberval.
Nature of project	(b) Total commitments/ DREE's share	(c) Municipality concernedZoological Garden development (Phase III)	$ 624,000 312,000	-DREE's share	St-FelicienProvincial park development	2.582.000 1.291.000	-DREE's share	Val JalbertIndustrial park	660,000 330,000	-DREE's share	DolbeauMunicipal camping	450.000 225.000	-DREE's share.	MistassiniCamping facilities development	772,306 386,153	-DREE's share	Roberval


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	On December 15, 1975, how much money had been spent constructing the Gentilly Heavy Water Plant?
2.	Is construction still going on and, if not (a) for what reason (b) on what date will it be completed (c) what will be the total cost?


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited reports as follows: 1. $84 million.
2. It should be noted that the answers being provided refer to the La Prade Heavy Water Plant being built by AECL near Gentilly, Quebec. Construction of the plant is continuing at a reduced rate as a result of the government's reduced spending restrictions on the project. The effects of the resulting delay to the completion of the plant are still being evaluated, and total cost data are not yet available. The project has been tentatively rescheduled to be completed by 1982.


Mr. Schellenberger: Will the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development consider the advisability of providing funds for 1976 and subsequent years to the Maskawachees Cultural College in Hobbema, Alberta to afford native people an opportunity to continue their education?


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: A submission has been made to Treasury Board to extend funding to Cultural Centres such as Maskawachees for the period April 1, 1976 to March 31, 1977. A revised mandate for the Cultural Centres program will be presented to

Treasury Board by September 1976 concerning funding beyond March 31, 1977.


Mrs. Holt:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I was elected to come here to represent 84,000 people in my riding of Vancouver-Kingsway, and I am unable to do so. I cannot do my job on behalf of the people who asked me to come here to serve them because of the political games being played here. A policeman who died in Calgary might not have died had we been able to proceed with bail reform.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Simma Holt: I am not being allowed to do my job because of gerrymandering and because of contempt of the House. Violence on the streets, murderers free on bail, hostagetaking becoming commonplace events, and we cannot work on legislation to get these situations corrected.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: Many motorists cannot even afford to buy licences in British Columbia. Young people cannot afford licences to get to their jobs. We could be working to find solutions to these matters, but the hon. members are not allowing me to serve my people. The 264 members of the House are not able to serve 22 million people because of the games he is playing. That member twice delayed the business of this House with motions to adjourn. A contempt of this House, contempt for the people of Canada and waste of $720,000 a day. That is wrong. It is contempt of this House. It is the second time that the NDP have done it, and gerrymandering is dangerous to Canada and an affront to the Canadian people who expect us to serve them-not play these silly games.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, would you kindly call notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 70, 72, 73 and 74.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 70-Mr. Marshall:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all minutes of meetings, letters and telegrams pertaining to the negotiations which have taken place between the government and the United States on the continental shelf boundary disputes with regard to the France-Canada Boundary around the Islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon.
March 17, 1976
Miss Monique Begin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the documents requested deal with negotiations or discussions between Canada and a foreign power-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether the House would pay sufficient attention to permit the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) to hear the reply to a motion in his name namely, that an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all minutes of meetings, letters and telegrams pertaining to the negotiations which have taken place between the government and the United States on the continental shelf boundary disputes with regard to the France-Canada boundary around the Islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon.


Monique Bégin: Thank you Mr. Speaker, it is just like the first grade where I used to teach.
The documents requested in this motion deal with negotiations or discussions between Canada and a foreign power concerning the continental shelf boundary between their territories. The publication of those documents would be harmful to the position taken by Canada during those negotiations and discussions. Consequently, it is with deep regret that I ask my hon. colleague to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Marshall:: Transfer for debate, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 72-Mr. Marshall:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all minutes of meetings, letters and telegrams pertaining to the negotiations which have taken place between the government and the United States on the continental shelf boundary disputes with regard to the USA-Canada Boundary of the Straits of Juan de Fuea.
Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, the request is absolutely identical, except that it applies to another foreign power and to Canada, and I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion for the same reason.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 73-Mr. Marshall:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all minutes of
Medical Care Act
meetings, letters and telegrams pertaining to the negotiations which have taken place between the government and the United States on the continental shelf boundary disputes with regard to the Alaska-British Columbia Boundary in the Dixon entrance.
Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, as far as the tabling of documents for motions No. 73 and No. 74 is concerned, the same conditions and the same answer apply, if my hon. colleague agrees.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 74-Mr. Marshall:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all minutes of meetings, letters and telegrams pertaining to the negotiations which have taken place between the government and the United States on the continental shelf boundary disputes with regard to the Alaska-Canada Boundary in the Beaufort Sea.
[Stage Direction]
[Editor's Note: See answer on motion No. 73.]
Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I ask the parliamentary secretary whether there is any good reason why my notice of motion for production of papers No. 96 could not be responded to immediately? I realize it has just hit the order paper, but all it asks for is a copy of the resignation last week of the Minister of Public Works and the reply thereto by the Prime Minister.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I will look into the matter and report to the hon. gentleman.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions for the production of documents be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, March 15, 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.
21419-5 9V2
[Stage Direction]
March 17, 1976
Medical Care Act
Mr. Speaker:: Before recognizing the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) may I inform the House that according to our records, within the terms of the order of the House made previously pursuant to Standing Order 75C, some 2 hours and 31 minutes remain to complete the five hours ordered by the House. Therefore, the remaining 2 hours and 10 minutes this afternoon will not be sufficient time to permit the vote to take place today. The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi.


Paul Edmund McRae: I rise on point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe I was speaking on this bill. I commenced my remarks at about 10 minutes to 10, and I was speaking when the House adjourned. I believe I should be able to continue for the full length of my time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair was not, of course, aware that the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. McRae) had the floor at the adjourment of the debate. The hon. member for Fort William.


Paul Edmund McRae: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a pleasure to be able to resume the normal business of the House and discuss this very important bill. In the first few minutes that I had in addressing myself to this matter, I made a point that I think has constantly to be made since members of the opposition tend to have great difficulty dealing with what the bill proposes to do. I mentioned that the bill deals only with medical care. It does not deal with hospital care. It deals with a number of other things associated with medical care as distinct from hospital care.
The bill proposes for the first year it would begin, on April 1, 1976, that the increase in the federal allotment to the provinces for this particular item would not exceed 13 per cent, in the second year would not exceed 11 per cent, and in the third year would be negotiated but probably would be, I understand, in the area of 10 percent. This is what the bill does, and it does this under the circumstances of the anti-inflation program that now exists. We believe, with a good deal of reason, that the circumstances are favourable and we can expect an 8.5 per cent increase in the coming year in terms of cost of living as opposed to the 13 per cent increase in terms of medical costs allowed. In the second year we hope it will be down to 6 per cent as opposed to the 11 per cent, and so on. We think there is a good deal of generosity and extra money involved in this program and that we are justified in making these limitations.
I dealt very briefly with the contribution of the NDP in the area of medical care. I congratulated them for their many years of concern and effort toward achieving medical care in this country. They were not the only ones who were concerned, but I have spoken to them about this and I did congratulate them. I must also indicate that had the progressives in this country been in the Liberal party rather than off in the corner, the 40 years of effort might have enjoyed success considerably earlier. I would also grant that under any given circumstances an idea does not happen until its time has arrived.
Let me continue my thoughts on a few points which I do not recall having been mentioned in this debate in terms of

the position of the NDP and the Conservatives. What I have in mind is the basic difference existing in the House of Commons between this government and the opposition in respect of our relationship with the provinces. It is my personal belief that we, as the government, possibly because we have been in power longer in this century-


An hon. Member:: Too long.


Paul Edmund McRae: -have a far stronger federal, national position. I think this was the position of the Tory party when it was in power in the last century. The NDP and the Tory parties have become very closely related to the governments of the various provinces and I would suspect they are very strongly representing ultimate provincial interests when they oppose this bill. There is an interesting conflict. I do not mean there is a confrontation between the provinces and the federal government or that we want it to be this way. Our position, as the government in power, has to be one of responsibility and one that primarily concerns Canadians. It must be a position which recognizes that Canada is not just the sum of its provinces.
Let me deal with the Conservative viewpoint on this particular bill. My first area of comment relates to the question: Do we need medicare? I find it very difficult to understand why eight or ten years after the fact this question has arisen. I find it difficult to accept the suggestion that medicare was shoved down our throats. I am convinced, as I was convinced 20 years ago, that this kind of medicare program is absolutely essential. I was convinced of this more than anything else perhaps, by an event that happened in our family in the late 1950s.
A very close member of the family, a remarkable woman, spent her life raising a large family. She worked very hard for years and years. One thing, she wanted in her life above all else was that when she died there would be no bills to pay. She wanted to be self-sustaining. She bought into a private medical scheme and paid the premiums for nine years. It was a scheme offered by one of the largest companies, not a fly-by-night operation. She participated in this scheme which she felt would look after her, medically, so long as she kept up the premiums. What happened? I ask this question because I think the answer is important in terms of the need for medicare. She became ill with cancer and went into the hospital. After her having one operation, this company-one of the largest in the world in this field-sent a notice that it would no longer accept premiums from her to cover any illness in respect of cancer. She was never told about this. We did not have the heart to tell her that, after paying the premiums for all those years, she was not covered. We looked after the whole thing from then on, and she lived for only six months.
This was a very dramatic event in our family, following which the family and all our friends realized how badly we needed a medical care scheme. There were some good schemes in existence. PSI was one, but it did not cover everyone, at least in the province of Ontario. It covered a number of groups, but a large proportion of the people in the province did not belong to those groups. These are some of the reasons that lead me to believe we need medicare, and that is why this bill should be supported.
March 17, 1976

I could go on at some length in this regard, but I should now like to deal with the financial side of the matter. I find it very difficult to understand why the Conservative party is acting in what I consider to be a very irresponsible way in respect of this particular bill. This leads me to wonder if the beliefs of that party are sound or deep. We have now reached the fourteenth or fifteenth day of debate on this bill and we are still at second reading stage. The sole purpose of the bill is to limit medical expenses.
In the last few days members of the Conservative party have had their minds on other things, but during this session those members have been criticizing the government for its huge deficits and expenditures. They have continued to insist that we must cut back. I find their position on this bill very difficult to understand. Let us consider some government expenditures in order to determine why this is one area in which we must cut back or at least limit increases in spending. Let me take the fiscal years 1974-75 and 1975-76. In 1974-75, out of a total of $30 billion this government spent $8.6 billion on the whole operation of government, including the armed forces, all the departments and the public service. The balance of $22 billion was in the form of transfer payments to persons, provinces and corporations for subsidies, and so on.
This money went to persons in the form of old age pensions and unemployment insurance. It went to paying off the debt. These were transfers to people, organizations, provinces and other levels of government. Over two-thirds of the total amount was spent in the form of transfer payments; a very large portion was in transfer payments to the provinces. This amounted to $6.5 billion in 1974-75.
Let us look at 1975-76. In that year we went from $8.6 billion to $9.5 billion in respect of the total cost of the operation of the federal government, including the public service, defence and the whole bit. However, in the same period, while there was an increase of about $.9 billion, the cost of the transfer payments increased in excess of $4 billion: it went up to $26 billion. As a matter of fact, between those two periods the total expenditures of the federal government increased by 16.8 per cent. But of that 16.8 per cent increase between 1974-75 and 1975-76, only 2.8 percentage points were for the operation of the government, and 14 percentage points were in the transfer area. We can see from that, with a little calculation, that the transfer area was increasing between those two years at three times the rate of the increase in the operation of the government.


Mr. Grafftey:: Do you know why?


Paul Edmund McRae: I think I have some ideas. If the hon. member would like to tell us, he can. The point is that it is extremely significant that the transfer costs are increasing at three times the increase in the operational costs of the government. So I think we must look at these transfer costs because they represent a large proportion of the cost.
Although I have some experience in this regard I have difficulty understanding the opposition to this bill in terms of the cost-sharing programs. The Conservative party, but not the New Democratic Party to the same extent, constantly talk about cutting back. Anyone who
Medical Care Act
has any experience-and I, as principal of a high school for many years, have experience in this regard-with costsharing formulas realizes that if you are the person spending the money, you trigger the amount spent.
I have been involved in cost-sharing arrangements where we put up 10 per cent and the other government put up 90 per cent. For putting up 10 per cent we got back a lot of money. That is the kind of thing that happens in costsharing. In order to make cost-sharing work with any degree of equity, I think it is necessary to have a ceiling. This is what is being done by this bill. A ceiling of 13 percentage points is being placed on the amount the federal government will give to the provinces for this particular program. This does not mean that the provinces cannot spend more. I think this is a necessary factor in cost-sharing. I think this can be a very dangerous arrangement when there is no recourse on the part of the one government, in this case the federal government, in terms of the amount it would have to put up. So if the Tory party is genuinely concerned about cutting back government expenditures, I think it must look at some of these cost-sharing arrangements.
I suggest to the Conservative party that we have made some attempt to cut back. We have not done all we could- there is no question about that-but we have done a significant amount in the area dealing with the operations: we have cut well over $1 billion from that. I am not particularly the type of person who argues that government expenditures essentially are a bad thing. As a matter of fact, even a government deficit would create jobs and promote growth in the country. However, if one wants to cut, I believe one must look at the area of the transfer of funds because this is where the money is. No one denies there is fat in the other areas, but this is the main area.
I have heard the suggestion in the House that one area we could cut is family allowances. We have done something in this regard in the form of indexing family allowances. The cutting of family allowances, in the sense of applying a means test, is a dangerous business. Family allowances, even for those who are fairly affluent in our society, represent an important thing for the family. I know there are very many people in our society, housewives, and so on, who consider this cheque to be very important, not just because they need the money but because it is not in the name of their husband or anyone else and it is theirs to spend as they see fit. That is a very important element. When one refers to the cutting of family allowances, that should be taken into account. If family allowances were to be cut or placed strictly on the basis of a means test, there might be a saving of half a million dollars, but this would affect many families because the family allowance cheque is an essential ingredient for any family, and not simply because the money is needed. So it seems to me we must look at many other areas.
I have not heard suggestions about how the cuts should be made; I have only heard suggestions that there should be cuts. We have not had any suggestions along this line from the opposition, because if the opposition were to say that there should be cuts here or there, then they would be taking the responsibility for those cuts and the public would hold them responsible. So when one is in the opposi-

March 17, 1976
Medical Care Act
tion, one does not say where the cuts should be, so the opposition does not have to take the responsibility. I challenge members of the opposition to say where they would cut significantly. I am not talking about a bit of fat here and there. I know that has to be done, but where can these cuts be made significantly? I suggest this is one of the areas we must move into.
We have made sure that the increases in medical care grants from the federal government over the years since the scheme has been in effect have been far greater than some inflationary increases and gross national product increases because it was important to improve medical care. So we let this happen. We have allowed no limits, because we felt it was worth while. Now the government says it must do some cutting and that there must be a limit. Things have been left up to this point. Health costs have been mounting at a tremendous rate. We know we have to impose a ceiling, and it has been set at 13 per cent for the next fiscal year. This seems like a reasonable situation. As I said earlier, 13 per cent is reasonable if during the fiscal year there is only an 8 per cent or an 8.5 per cent increase in the cost of living.
The increase is still greater than the total of the inflation in the dollar and the total of the increase in the gross national product. I think at this particular point there is some real justification for this kind of limitation. It is not a cut. We are not going to spend less; we are going to spend more than we did last year. However, we have a limit to a cost-sharing program whereby no one can spend so much money and trigger a very large increase on the part of the federal government. The cost-sharing areas have given us much trouble over the years, and I think this is a useful way of approaching this particular problem.
I should like to conclude by repeating something I said earlier. At first I was talking about the NDP, but now I shall refer to the Tory party. I believe the Tory party believes this country is the sum of its provinces and, rightly so, they have very close relations with the provinces. They have not been in power nationally for any significant period in this century, so therefore their ties are with their provincial governments, and rightly so, because there are four Tory provincial governments in this country and I am sure hon. members opposite have good relations with those governments.
Therefore, I believe some of the opposition to this bill stems partly from the support these federal members want to extend to their provinces, and rightly so. But I plead with hon. members to recognize that this country is something much more than the sum of the ten provinces. We in this House must deal with the good of the whole country, and this kind of limitation of cost-sharing arrangements is the one way in which we can significantly reduce federal government spending.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the previous speaker did so intentionally, but certainly indirectly one of the reasons-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


William Heward Grafftey: I know how very boring it is when you are not given many responsibilities, so you just sit there all day, cackling.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Would the hon. member please address the Chair?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I will address the Chair and call on you to exercise your authority and call for silence from those cackling members. I am here to discuss seriously a gut issue in this country, and it will not be very helpful if the drones sitting opposite just sit there and yell all day. I have never heard the hon. member make a speech in this House in 20 years.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Would the hon. member direct his remarks to Bill C-68?


William Heward Grafftey: I detected from the remarks of the hon. member who spoke previously, indirectly and directly, one of the reasons this country is in a great deal of trouble today. He articulated the kind of principles of federalism which are so often articulated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the kind of view about Canada today which sort of wishes that we were not really a federal union at all, that we could just sweep the provinces under the carpet and pretend they do not exist or that we can confront them.
I believe one of the reasons this country is so divided today is that Ottawa has attempted, by confronting the provinces in the last eight years, to sweep regional and provincial differences under the carpet in an attempt to impose a monolithic uniformity on Canadian federalism. That is just not the kind of country we have. What the hon. member has just articulated is the kind of wishful thinking articulated by doctrinaire Liberals in the last eight years which has divided this country as it has never been divided. You cannot articulate an "either/or" debate. Any Canadian prime minister, be he Progressive Conservative or Liberal, has to defend and define a strong federal cause. But at the same time, whether the hon. member likes it or not, there are provinces in this country which must be co-operated with and worked with-not confronted.
I am very interested in the question of escalating costs vis-a-vis joint programs. I know why there are escalating costs vis-a-vis joint programs. It is because since World War II successive Liberal governments, without truly consulting with the provinces, unilaterally have imposed programs. Some of them have been very good programs in principle-medicare is one of them-but the government imposes programs without truly-I underline the word "truly"-consulting the provinces, working with them and listening to them. This is a government which does not listen. The minister is not even in the House today to participate in this important debate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Kaplan:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare I should like to inform the House that the minister is attending a federal-provincial relations cabinet committee.
March 17, 1976


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The minister is hoping to participate in the debate this afternoon and he has asked me to inform him if an opportunity to do so arises.


William Heward Grafftey: The reason for escalating costs in joint programs, underlined by the hon. member who preceded me, stems from the fact that very often they have been unilaterally imposed on the provinces without their being consulted about their various priorities and their needs, and very rarely ab initio from the very beginning have cost parameters been put on these cost-sharing programs. Then the hon. member has the nerve to come to this House and try to tell us costs are escalating out of control. Why are these joint programs which result in transfer payments escalating out of control? It is because the government has never listened to the provinces. Especially under this Prime Minister the government has pretended that there is no federal union at all in this country. This government treats the provinces as if they did not exist. Then the hon. member comes to the House wondering why transfer payments escalate out of control.
They ask me about cuts. I will tell them about cuts, Mr. Speaker. I sometimes wonder if ministers of the Crown have read the Auditor General's report. I suggest, before they start cutting a program that touches upon humane, decent and civilized-


An hon. Member:: How about the foot soldier?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi has the floor.


William Heward Grafftey: We are talking about the centrifugal social program, a pioneer social program, in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I am going to appeal to you to call for discipline in this House. There is continual shouting, and no other forum in the western world would permit that sort of thing. I would ask Your Honour to exercise a little discipline.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member has the floor. I suggest we all listen; we might learn a few things.


William Heward Grafftey: Is this what hon. members opposite are paid for, to come and sit in the House and howl like jackasses all the time?


An hon. Member:: How can you say anything: you were three months away from this House.


An hon. Member:: Did you get your salary?


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, they talk about cuts. Before this government starts cutting a centrifugal social program in direct relation to the humane, decent, civilized delivery of health care services, I ask them to read the Auditor General's report. It has a plethora of suggestions about where the government could cut real waste, duplication
Medical Care Act
and more waste out of their expenditures. They ask where we would call for specific cuts. If they would just get a little bit of co-ordination between the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the placement offices, it would help. To change one substantive bit of law regarding the UIC could cut $2 million out of the budget. Also, what about the proper type of management for existing programs that the Auditor General has been recommending for years? Then there is about $1 billion in consultant fees to friendly Liberals. If they would just read the Auditor General's report and give the Auditor General managment control as well as-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


William Heward Grafftey: No, Mr. Speaker.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member would not want to create a false impression in the House. If he had been following the debate under the chairmanship of one of his colleages at the public accounts committee, he would know that we have brought about some reforms in accordance with the wishes of the Auditor General. I know the hon. member would not want to create the impression that he is not aware of what is going on in the House of Commons and at a committee chaired by one of the members of his own party.


An hon. Member:: He is never here.


An hon. Member:: He has never read the report.


William Heward Grafftey: What about the future and the cost sharing programs with the provinces? This has nothing to do with putting cost parameters on the program. I hope hon. members opposite will not have to stand up ten years from now and talk about escalating control costs vis-a-vis transfer payments. After eight years of Trudeau socialism, after eight years of Trudeau Liberalism where total government expenditures have gone up from $10 billion to $36 billion, the record is going to show that not only has this government not put on the floor of this House of Commons one innovative, new social program, but that they are cutting back on existing ones passed by prior administrations. After over-tripling the budget, they are cutting back on prior social programs and have not innovated any new ones. What kind of record is that, Mr. Speaker? It has always been thus under Liberal administrations. The Auditor General has told them 50 ways of cutting expenditures.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Not at all.


William Heward Grafftey: We go to one committee after another, but what do they-


Mr. Bechard:: I rise on point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt, but the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la Madeleine (Mr. Bechard) is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Paproski:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege.

March 17, 1976
Medical Care Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair cannot listen to two points of order at the same time.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I have point of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. We will start with one. I recognize the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la Madeleine.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, that is not a question of privilege; it is a point of order.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, once the opposition whip will have heard my point of order, he will not rise on a question of privilege.
I would like to say that the hon. member for Brome-Mis-sisquoi (Mr. Grafftey), who has been sitting in this House for a very long time, certainly knows the rules. No doubt he knows that he should address the House through your Honour, that he should not continually say: You have done this, you have done that. He must address the Chair. This seems elementary to me and the hon. member must know the rules of this House.


Steve Eugene Paproski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski), on a point of order.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I find there is a continuous filibuster on the other side of the House and our speaker is not allowed to be heard. There has been noise ever since the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) rose in his place. Hon. members on the other side of the House have not let him speak. If we want to carry on with this debate and be responsible in this House, they should keep their mouths closed and listen to the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: What about responsibility?


Mr. Oberle:: It is their closure, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I must admit there has been some kind of interference, purposely or not. I think the point just made by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre is well taken, and because of it the Chair will allow an extension of time to the hon. member who has the floor. In the meantime, I think the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi should be allowed to make his remarks. He has the floor. Other hon. members will be able to respond to him afterwards, if they wish to do so.


An hon. Member:: They might learn something.


An hon. Member:: They will never learn.


William Heward Grafftey: It has always been thus. The poor are very often the least capable of being good lobbyists, so what happens? When there are obvious cuts to be made in the billions of dollars worth of government expenditure, they get it in the neck every time. The low income people who were meant to be served by decent medical and health care services are the ones who suffer.
(Mr. Paproski.]
It is passing strange to me, Mr. Speaker, that a government that has seen expenditures go from $10 billion to $36 billion a year, with the economy on its knees, does not even generate enough growth in the private sector to get new programs going, let alone sustain one passed by the Pearson administration. They look around for things to cut and they cut medicare, the delivery of medical and health care service to people at the grass roots level. That is a wonder to me. Instead of listening to the voice of the people on the floor of the House, where is the minister? He is with the bureaucrats in an ivory tower. A cut here and a cut there: they do not listen to the silent poor and the grass roots people because they are poorer lobbyists. They say, "We are going to cut medicare." That is wonderful!
At a time in Canadian history when we should be talking about leading the world in the delivery of medical and health care services, what are these fellows doing? They are cutting back on services. Just ask anybody in the medical and health care world. After eight years of Trudeau administration, medical and health care services have slipped slowly but surely from excellence to mediocrity and if we go any longer with this administration they are going to be very poor. Ask anyone. Are hon. members opposite so blindly partisan that they do not listen? The paramedical workers and the medical health care service people can tell you things have slipped from excellence to mediocrity. Now we are faced with a cut in services.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, the economy has been so mismanaged by this government that there has not been enough room in the private sector not only to inaugurate new and imaginative programs but to sustain existing ones. It is worth repeating that government expenditures rose from $10 billion to $36 billion annually. How did the government devise the formula for controlling costs? It has never explained this to the House or to the provinces. Apparently it pulled the formula out of thin air. It is an arbitrary formula, so complicated that no backbencher or minister understands it. How can the provinces understand this mishmash of nonsense, this so-called formula for controlling medical care expenses? The government is obligated to explain to the provinces, before confronting them with a fait accompli, how it evolved its cost-sharing formulas. After all, it was done without consultation.
Consider the history of medicare. Nobody likes saying, "I told you so." I do not. Most of us want to see good programs working. Hon. members who were here during the 1960s when medicare was brought in do not like saying, "I told you so." In those days the government's position was that you were either for medicare or against it. It would not accept amendments hon. members on my side suggested. When we suggested amendments which would have made medicare work better, we were accused of being against the program.
Those on my side of the House who were in touch with the grass roots knew that the people of the country were in accord with the principle of medicare. The Liberals adopt a "holier than thou" attitude as if they only are favoured in the sight of God. They think that only they supported the principle of medicare. They are wrong. We, too, sincerely believed in the principle of medicare. Because we suggested amendments to the original bill which would take into
March 17, 1976

account the history, priorities and politics of different provinces, we were accused of being against medicare. Now the chickens have come home to roost.
Although we supported the principle of universal medicare, we recognized the different needs of the provinces. We took into account the needs of Saskatchewan which had begun a medicare program of its own. Manitoba had begun a group program. The needs of Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces were different. We knew this. But did the federal authority consult the provinces? No. It said to the provinces, "If you don't like it, lump it." Ten years later it says to the provinces, "Now we shall control costs our way, and that is that." That is not my idea of federalism. Does the hon. member who preceded me support that kind of federalism?
How is medicare in Canada working? Let me draw an analogy. Let us suppose that the people of a town are starving and have not enough money with which to buy bread. The town council, in its wisdom, votes money with which the people can buy bread. Unfortunately, the town council has not telephoned the bakery to discover if the bakery can supply the bread. The upshot is that although it voted the starving town dwellers money with which to buy bread, they starve simply because the council did not make sure that the bakery had bread to sell.
That illustrates what has happened to medicare. Like so many joint federal-provincial programs, it is neither fish, fowl nor fair weather. Medicare is merely a means for paying for non-existent services. Medical service is not available in many rural communities, towns and villages. Sometimes it is not accessible to people living in the inner part of cities. The program was designed to help these very people, and it failed. The government provided money for a service which is just not there. I know my analogy is not complete, but it will do. Until the government takes account of the priorities of the provinces and their ability to provide humane, decent medical service, until it consults with the provinces to make sure that medical personnel and facilities are available, medicare for many will be a cruel hoax.
The government did not consult the provinces to discover if there were facilities and personnel for implementing medicare. Medicare has become a means for transferring money and paying for non-existent services. In the 1950s people in public life thought that if your heart was in the right place and you threw enough money at a problem, it would correct itself overnight. That attitude will not work in the 1970s and 1980s. The government must listen to the provinces and work with them.
In many ways, our medicare program combines the worst features of private enterprise and socialism. Because you throw taxpayers' dollars at a problem does not mean it will go away. The government set up a joint program it called medicare. It is a program involving transfer payments and in many ways is typical of some of the worst joint programs forced on the provinces since the Second World War. Why, Mr. Speaker? The government did not consult the provinces. It set no limits, did no real planning. If it planned with the provinces, why are we in the present mess? The government wants to make the provinces responsible for the program. Why should the provinces be responsible when initially the government would not
Medical Care Act
listen to the provinces, paid no heed to their priorities and imposed, unilaterally, this inflexible program?
Now, ten years later, it comes to the House and says, "We broke the bank." What nonsense! Anyone who suggests that we can discuss medicare without discussing at the same time hospital insurance is talking nonsense. That is pure bunkum. If that is their attitude, small wonder our medical care programs are in disarray. You cannot approach medicare as if it were in a vacuum. You must consider the total package of medical care services.
What is happening in Canada? I hope I am being nonpartisan. At the very time we ought to consider how to maintain and improve one of the best health care services in the world, we are cutting medical research. Talk to health researchers in this country. They do not know what to do. Many of the world's leading research programs have been scrapped. Needed services are being scrapped. Why? The government turns a deaf ear to requests for consultation with provinces in this area as well.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) can meet with his officials to the end of time trying to devise formulas to control costs. However, until the plant and personnel are made ready, we will really be whistling in the dark. I remember speaking to the then minister of national health and welfare when we were initially passing medicare. As the debate went on I asked to what extent, in the provinces and municipalities, the plant and personnel were ready. She said, "Not really at all, but if we wait for it to be ready, we will wait forever." I, and most other people, agreed that we could not hold back this universal program called medicare until the plant and personnel were ready. However, that is not an excuse to have done relatively nothing with the provinces in the past ten years in terms of planning and building up plant and personnel.
What do we in Canada have compared to other countries in the western world? In the province of Quebec we have the Castonguay report. It is probably one of the best reports in the world vis-a-vis the delivery of medical and health care services. I often wonder if the minister has read it. What about the 1970 Ontario royal commission report on the healing arts? Like the Castonguay report, it is one of the greatest documents of all time on the delivery of medical and health care services. What about our governmental experience in Saskatchewan years and years ago in terms of initiating a public health measure? We could learn from that. But does this government ever learn from anything? In the area of research and Dr. Wilder Penfield, 12 years ago we were recognized all over the world as being excellent. We have slipped worldwide from excellent to mediocre because of this government's insistence that it knows it all and that the people at the local level do not know anything.
If you read these reports, they are far flung. Has there been any real discussion with the provinces about ambulatory care networks, the proper training of paramedical workers? I am looking at the Ontario example of emergency services, community clinics and emphasis on preventive medicine, home care, general clinics and regional responsibilities that hospitals should take in terms of the health
11886

March 17, 1976
Medical Care Act
care needs of a total community in the area of curative and preventive medicine.
A cursory reading of these reports shows, like any other business, how to save money, not spend money. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), when he was minister of national health and welfare, reiterated the need for national standards vis-a-vis hospital regionalization where the community hospital would be the hub in the community in respect of total health care services and meeting the needs of the community. Has the minister read these things? Is he aware of them? Is the federal government going to continue to confront the provinces and pretend that their various needs and priorities are absolutely non-existent? Quite frankly, I have not made up my mind. I think that hospitals will no longer be able to be just expensive workshops for doctors. I do not think that right now we should put doctors on salary. But there is certainly one thing of which I am convinced: the fee for service principle is not working. Maybe that is the other extreme from salaries. Has there been any intelligent discussion in this House about the extreme of putting doctors on salary? No. Has it happened in committee? No. When we ask officials if they have discussed it, we are told no. Have they consulted the provinces about it? No. Every expert in the field realizes that somewhere between the extreme of fee for service and putting doctors on salary we must work out a viable formula or we will break the bank. Has there been a discussion on that? No. The federal government blocks its ears and is unilaterally confronting the provinces with a cost formula, and goodness knows where they got it.
All I say to the minister is, "Do your homework. Sit down with the provinces. Consult them vis-a-vis hospital regionalization, ambulatory care, the training of paramedical workers, emergency services, community clinics, emphasis on preventive medicine, home care and other clinics." Only when these matters are discussed intelligently-not separating medicare from the hospital services act as members opposite would have us do-then, and only then, will we be taking one of the few initial steps of bringing costs under control.
In the doctorless villages of our rural areas and inner cities we still have money being voted into people's pockets for services that are plainly not there. Low income people in our inner cities, as doctors gravitate to the hospitals, are left with no doctors and no paramedical people to take up the slack, because we have not trained them. They have no ability. It is all very well for those in the ivory towers, who are healed, to say they should have the ability; but the fact is they do not. They often cannot get to hospitals. There are no doctors, there is no ability, no community clinics, no paramedical people. These things are in reports that have been before the government for 20 years. How long do we have to wait?
The best this government can do, after seeing expenditures go from $10 billion to $36 billion, is to confront the provinces with a cost cut. Surely the backbenchers on the government side can make the minister listen. Just because I do not happen to be a member of that party, do not think that I take any delight over this. Let us wake up and get going. I think it creates a lot of cynicism in the body politic, after seeing expenditures go up from $10 billion to $36 billion in eight years, that the first thing you

cut is a centrifugal, pioneer social program before you get at the real cuts.
In conclusion, medical and health care services constitute one of the many challenges which are not being met by federalism as now practised in Canada. Like the challenge of the environment, transportation, living space in our cities, education and the rest, medical and health care services are the very viability of Canadian federalism, something that was alluded to by the hon. member who preceded me. Medicare schemes, as I said before, continue to be merely a finance mechanism. The complete breakdown of service will come about sooner than we care to think. If doctors and medical men will not go into underserviced areas, surely a decent and humane state has an obligation to ensure that medical personnel are equitably distributed.
Public costs mean that public resources should be used to influence the operation of systems that are essential for the health needs of all the people. Costs will continue to skyrocket if government, working with the public and medical profession, does not assume its responsibilities in determining, as I said before, that the plant, personnel and services are made ready. If they are not, I ask this House what the money was voted for in the first place.
Ottawa must give strong central direction and co-ordination to these programs. However, the delivery of modern medical and health care services means a high degree of decentralization, which in turn means responsiveness to local and community needs. Ottawa does not have all the answers. More often, the people in communities know what is best for them and how best to govern their affairs. At the same time, the central authority must assure that local action is carried out in co-operation with other regions, especially when we contemplate hospital regionalization.
To date, Ottawa has not taken into account, especially with the provinces, the principle of local self-agency, forcing the provinces to participate in medicare schemes which in principle are good. Federal authorities are doing next to nothing to permit the provinces, and in turn local government, to have realistic taxing powers to enable them to play their part in any progressive medicare program. The same could be said of the joint hospitalization program. By refusing to help the provinces make the plans, resources and personnel for these programs, Ottawa must share much of the blame for the current nightmare both in the distribution of services and of skyrocketing costs.
If we are serious about providing a better and more equitable distribution of services, especially in the doctorless villages of rural and inner-core urban areas I have already mentioned, immediate action is necessary. More regional clinics will have to be built, together with smaller clinics in local communities. Family health workers will have to be trained to work with doctors and local people. For all paramedical workers a uniform standard of subsidization for training should be implemented, together with a proper quality control supervisory system. This means the successful application of incentives in career planning. Medical schools and hospitals with community and regional responsibilities should have the task of creating a sys-
March 17, 1976

tematic scheme for recruiting, training and deploying paramedical workers.
Sound management and business techniques must be applied to hospitals. These include staff organization and effective communications, meaningful financial reporting, regional planning, effective utilization of manpower and computer technology. If the federal government would only consult with the provinces, it could play a leading part, a pioneer role in effecting a reduction of these problems. Objective criteria must be set up to govern admissions, investigative treatment, length of stay, and discharge. Doctors must realize the financial repercussions of their activities. No longer can we allow hospitals to become doctors' workshops.
Incentives to improve care, reduce costs and increase efficiency must be introduced into the hospital sector in co-operation with the provinces. Administrators, not doctors, must run our hospitals. Trustees and governors should be responsible for over-all policy, and doctors must concentrate upon the practice of medicine. In order to have good hospital administrators, we must provide incentives. In future, regional hospital planning must receive more emphasis as hospitals assume more responsibility toward the particular communities in which they are to be found. A greater number of hospitals must share high-cost facilities.
Hospital admissions will be reduced only when we give due priority to expenditures on preventive medicine, health care clinics, general ambulatory care centres, home care programs, regional community clinics, nursing and convalescent homes and other facilities which could treat and care for patients who now find themselves admitted to general community hospitals. To this extent we cannot discuss medicare in a vacuum apart from hospital insurance, although separate programs, are involved. In the area of discipline and control in relation to hospitals, Ottawa must assume responsibility for adequate staffing, financing and accreditation programs. Peer review and medical auditing must be made meaningful, while medical record procedures are updated through the help of computer technology. Doctors can no longer control their own disciplining and medical associations must become public bodies governed in the interests of the public.
In closing, I should like to ask, in relation to the roles of Ottawa and the provinces vis-a-vis medical and health care services: Where do we go from here? I hope the present debate is the last of its kind, when all we hear from the government is its intention to cut costs in accordance with some incomprehensible formula. I hope the next time we take part in such a discussion we can engage in a substantive debate about the humane and decent delivery of health care services to people at the grass roots level in terms of the planification of plant and personnel.
Lack of public concern and interest is largely responsible for the present mess. An integral part in any advance depends on enlightened public interest and action. As the shroud of mystery is lifted from medical services and activities, questions must be asked and performance demanded by the federal government which transfers so many of the dollars which those services cost. In many ways this is already happening as a result of the information explosion which is taking place in our post-industrial
Medical Care Act
society. Electric communications in general, and television in particular, have brought out and exposed so many problems to public scrutiny. The danger lies in the fact that everything we see, hear or read about seems to constitute a crisis, until we become virtually crisis-immune and can no longer distinguish between bona fide and imaginary problems.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: Order. I understand from the ruling made earlier this afternoon-I did not happen to be in the House-that the hon. member was to be accorded a few extra minutes. His time has now been extended, however, and he can only finish his speech if there is unanimous consent.


William Heward Grafftey: I am on my last paragraph.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: Is it agreed that the hon. member may continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Heward Grafftey: It seems as if all at once every problem ever known to man has simultaneously been dumped in our laps for immediate solution. We have confused our priorities. We have devoted a great deal of effort to the production of material things, and little to the care of people who produce them. As a critic of medical and health care services in Canada, I say our health care services are, compared with what they might be, in appalling disarray. We have been faced with a multitude of real problems. We have thrown up our hands in despair or, at least, the government has done so. Our society suffers from deep social wounds, yet our approach has been only to apply band-aids. On the evidence of the debate up to now, we are only tinkering with the parts of a non-system when it comes to the delivery of health care services-and that is worse than doing nothing. We need major surgery.


Paul Edmund McRae: Would the hon. member permit a question if the House will indulge him for a minute or so longer?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: That could be done only by consent of the House. Does the House agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Edmund McRae: The hon. member made a statement that the government was putting money in people's pockets for services that are not there. Since those engaged in the medical profession are by far the largest recipients of those sums of money, is the hon. member suggesting that members of the medical profession are ripping-off the public by putting money into their pockets when they are not providing the services?


William Heward Grafftey: Technically, the hon. member is right, but the analogy I was using-


An hon. Member:: Yes or no.


William Heward Grafftey: It is not a matter of yes or no. The government likes simplistic answers, but it is not as simple as that. In effect, medicare is a financing machine which pays the bills whether the money goes to the individual citizen or to the doctor directly. I am not saying the doctors are
2141 9-60(4
March 17, 1976

Medical Care Act
ripping-off the system, but I am saying that medicare in Canada today is largely a financing mechanism, a means by which, indirectly at least, the government pays large sums of money into taxpayers' pockets to pay for services. It does not actually pay the money into the taxpayers' pockets, but it pays the bills to the doctor.


Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the privilege of speaking a second time on Bill C-68 after helping to open the debate in late January. I promise one thing; I shall not try to copy the act of the last speaker. In my speech in January I covered many aspects of medicare, but there is one in particular I should like to continue to discuss today. I believe that cost efficiency in the program is necessary, that it is possible and that it can be achieved through voluntary means without lowering the level of national health care.
The Ottawa Citizen of March 16-yesterday-had this to say:
Because medicare is a relatively new program, while hospital insurance dates back to the 1950s it is medicare that has been fingered for most of the blame in the dramatic escalation of health costs.
But it is hospital insurance that is responsible for three-quarters of the $8 billion of health costs. Moreover, the hospital insurance bill went up by 25 per cent last year, compared to only 12 per cent for medicare.
This is undebatable and is a point that has been made many times in this debate. More importantly, the Ontario health minister, the Hon. Frank Miller, recently was told in the Ontario legislature that the greatest weakness in the OHIP system is the open-ended arrangement with the Ontario Medical Association. The MLA concerned further stated that there are no incentives in the system for doctors to cut down on unnecessary work. Well, Mr. Speaker, that may be true to some extent, but then Mr. Miller went on to say that methods to close the system are not as foolproof as they appear to be at first glance. He said that the province will try to evolve a closed system of payments for health insurance. I think that is good news for all of us. However, he said that we need to know more about what motivates people and what gives good service than we know now. Those are wise words and deserve to be heeded.
I should just like to digress for a moment in order to comment on one particular aspect of increased hospital costs, and that is nurses' pay. Recently, some hospital spokesmen in Ontario were quoted as saying that high wage settlements awarded to nurses were responsible- they did not say "partly responsible"; they said "responsible"-for the province's spiralling health bill. They said that grade 12 students with two years' community college training can command almost $13,000 a year as nurses, and that they are completely useless. They urged the Ontario government to stand up to the nurses on future wage talks even if it results in a strike. Brave men!
Was it not that very Ontario government that set up the new nursing courses in community colleges and that held nurses' pay down shamefully until recent years? I believe that no reasonable person would regret the increases in nurses' incomes which have been permitted recently, regardless of increasing hospital costs. Our nurses are among the best in the world and deserve every cent of what they are receiving.

I should like to return to my main and previous theme of reducing health care costs through voluntary means by eliminating overservicing, partly through good health maintenance and, therefore, reduced patient demand for medical and hospital care. We may close hospitals and change the rules and facilities of the health care system, but to a large measure what we will always need is the full co-operation and understanding of both doctors and patients.
In regard to patient overdemand, I should like to quote from a small pamphlet, the Medical Review Committee Bulletin, published by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario which is a watchdog organization on Ontario doctors. In a recent issue it carried articles dealing with the physician's responsibility for claims, conflict of interest, billing during the physician's absence, and so on. This is a very responsible group that oversees medical care. The last article in this particular issue carries the heading "Patient demand for unnecessary medical services". This article reads as follows:
The Medical Review Committee has become aware that some physicians are apparently having difficulty in coping with patient demand for excessive and unnecessary medical services. This concern does not address itself to the occasional visit which may be in retrospect unnecessary but rather to the repeated and troublesome demand on the part of some patients for the performance of unnecessary services by the physician.
It is recognized that some physicians may cope with this problem by dismissing the patient from their care; however, some members have expressed a desire to have an opportunity to report the demands of these patients to the proper authority so that the adverse effect upon health care budgeting may be minimized. The Medical Review Committee would advise members of the profession that consultation at the most senior levels of the health insurance plan indicates that the office of the general manager would be most receptive to communication from physicians with respect to the excessive demands made by patients in such unusual cases and would be fully prepared to investigate and attempt to remedy such abuses by patients.
Certainly, a responsible response by doctors to what is often not a responsible approach by patients. I am not attacking the patient population, but they have their faults as much as anyone else and this should be recognized. As far as the doctors are concerned, we have already stated that very heavy demands are made on them and we have documented this. If our doctors are properly distributed and located, they do not need unnecessary work either for their own satisfaction or their personal income. But by the same token they do need to be well looked after.
Let me talk for a moment about the welfare of the doctors themselves. Recently the magazine Canadian Doctor published some interesting facts on the health and welfare of doctors themselves. Dr. M. O. Vincent, executive director of the Homewood sanitorium in Guelph, Ontario, has suggested that doctors should learn to say no to excessive demands on their time and energy. He said more and more Canadian doctors are being treated for mental breakdowns and the incidence is highest among "those who can't say no". He says that emotional ills in physicians often lead to alcoholism and even drug addiction and that these problems are more often observed among doctors than among most other college graduate occupational groups. It was noted that the suicide rate among physicians, especially psychiatrists, is unusually high. Charging that too many other doctors have unrealistic expectations of themselves,
March 17, 1976

he urged them to realize that their time and stamina are limited and to plan their lives accordingly.
The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario has set up a new committee to determine whether physicians are fit enough mentally or physically to practice medicine. This new body could require any physician to submit to a physical or mental examination. Refusal to do so could result in suspension or loss of licence. It will be interesting to see the eventual results of this study. My own experience suggests that the doctor who remains healthiest and happiest may be the family physician in the rural area.
Just a few words, Mr. Speaker, about doctors' incomes. This seems to be one of the main concerns in discussing this medicare bill, along with some smaller administrative costs. What exactly has been the record of doctors' fees and net disposable incomes in recent years? The profession adhered voluntarily to the federal government's wage and guidelines in 1971 under the commission set up by Dr. John Young, and thereby demonstrated considerable economic responsibility right through 1975. During a five-year period in which inflation rose over 30 per cent, Ontario doctors received increases of 4.5 per cent in 1971, 7.75 per cent in 1974 and 4 per cent in 1975, a total of 16.25 per cent.
In real income gains before tax over the past 20 years, a recent survey shows that doctors gained only 38 per cent, the lowest of all 20 groups compared, and only half the Canadian average of 75 per cent. Their position in the group of 20 has even deteriorated in that time from fifteenth place to twentieth, or last. Over the past ten years they have actually lost purchasing power. Their incomes and, therefore, their percentage increases may be among the highest in the country, but that is our system, a hierarchy of incentives and rewards and not a socialistic levelling. That is what has made our system energetic and effective, whereas graduated income tax and social programs also make it humane.
In spite of losing ground economically, the doctors are prepared to co-operate with the anti-inflation program as long as it is applied consistently and fairly; and that, of course, includes the medicare amendments. They would also like to feel their efforts are appreciated, which is probably just as important. In a letter to members of the Canadian Medical Association, dated January 14, 1976, the president, Dr. Lloyd D. Grisdale, stated:
Lastly, as your president, I ask that you honour the commitment made by the C.M.A. to parliament, the government and the people of Canada on behalf of the medical profession. I ask that, for the trial period we promised, you honour the letter and the spirit of the antiinflation legislation of which it forms a major part. The control of inflation is essential. We have a responsibility, as a responsible profession and citizens, to support the decisions and efforts of our duly elected representatives to that end.
The Ottawa Citizen of yesterday wrote:
Before the income controls were introduced, doctors in Ontario and Alberta were calling for 35 per cent hikes in their medicare fee schedules. Faced with the $2,400 annual limit on income gains, they settled for eight and nine per cent respectively.
The problems of the health care system, like all our current problems, need to be worked out, not by confrontation but by consultation between the federal and provincial governments and the health professionals involved.
Medical Care Act
Hopefully, the climate for that constructive approach is developing. Before I close, I should just like to return to one aspect of this subject of health care costs that I touched upon the last time. I want to make a few more comments on the area of the relationship between the increasing cost and the migration of medical doctors to Canada.
Already one-third of Canada's 32,000 doctors are foreign-trained. Perhaps at one time they were needed more than they are now. The professional migration process also contributes to a medical brain-drain undesirable in other countries and they have let us know about this. Redistribution of our own doctors would help the situation, preferably on a voluntary basis. Many people think that the best incentives for doctors to return to the boondocks, as it were, would be higher income and better facilities, whereas it may be that most people these days prefer an urban lifestyle, not only the doctors but their wives and their children as well.
The Ottawa Citizen lead editorial of January 21, 1975, questioned restrictions on the migration of foreign doctors. It expressed doubts as to whether they can be kept in rural areas, but this may in fact not be impossible. It also poked fun at Frank Miller's claim that each additional doctor costs a province $250,000 annually in terms of the health services he generates. However, this can actually happen even in an area where an extra doctor is not strictly needed, and I represent such an area. The potential for expansion of medical services is virtually limitless. Mr. Miller states that these restrictions could save Canada $500 million a year. I think that is very possible and believable. The key questions are: How many doctors do we need? How many can we afford? How can we maximize the opportunities for Canadians to participate? How can we make sure we have the right distribution of such professionals? How can we best look after the welfare of these valuable professional people?
In conclusion, in this sense the federal minister is proposing a series of amendments to Bill C-68, the medicare bill, which should begin to respond to some of the more serious concerns expressed, particularly those expressed by medical people themselves. These proposed amendments are as follows. The exact ceilings are to be set for two years only. Inflation and other factors are too difficult to predict beyond that time. Those ceilings exceed the present anti-inflation guidelines because other expenses may be involved besides payments to doctors. The federal government maintains the option of setting ceilings beyond this two-year period if such are necessary in light of the situation at that time. If the figures have not been stated, it is because they cannot realistically be stated. The method of arriving at these ceilings is subject to full consultation with the provinces.
Second, there will be provision for increases for new important classes of services. Obviously, whatever the cost, a new lifesaving method, for example, is a must and the provinces introducing it deserve to be rewarded accordingly. Third and last, there will be a three-year exemption from the ceiling for new insured services. This will allow a period for build-up and stabilization of initial costs. As I said before, these amendments are designed to help make

March 17, 1976
Medical Care Act
the bill more flexible and acceptable and I believe they deserve the support of all of us.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may be allowed to speak on a point of order. I realize that you, the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), are in the chair and I believe there is no better way of bringing that to the attention of the House than by expressing that acknowledgement at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, let me say that I know it is not lost on members of the House that the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) served with great distinction during the twenty-ninth parliament as the Deputy Speaker of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I know that all members appreciate the services the hon. member rendered us in that very important office.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Those were some of the things I wanted to say, and probably I would have said a lot more. I know we all appreciate your being in the chair, sir.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will realize that the House wants you to rule that this is a valid point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: I hope that Hansard will record me as saying "Hear, hear" instead of "Oh, oh".


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, that was an acceptable point of order to be interrupted by, but I hope it is not my rising that causes you to leave the chair. In any event, I want to say a few words about the bill before us. This is the first time I have intervened while the medicare bill has been before the House. I do so now because of a number of comments made by hon. members on the other side I think they have been trying to leave the impression with the Canadian people that the cost-sharing formula is not going to be changed and that the provinces, in reality, will be receiving perhaps more money from the federal government than in the past. I suggest there is a bit of deception in that argument being perpetrated by some, though not all, Liberal members across the floor.
In the past there was a cost-sharing agreement under which the federal government paid 50 per cent of the cost of health care in this country. That type of formula will not be adhered to in the future. The type of legislation that is being pushed through the House by this closure or time allocation will limit the increased share of federal participation to 50 per cent plus 13 per cent of the additional costs in the next year. If the costs next year should increase by 14 per cent, 15 per cent or 16 per cent, it will not be a 50-50 cost-sharing arrangement between the provinces and the federal government.

There is a strong likelihood that medical care costs and hospital costs in this country will go up by more than 13 per cent next year. If that is the case, the federal government's share of the total cost of health and medical care in this country will be under 50 per cent. I think that is a retrograde step; it is a step backward from the policy the government has been pursuing in this country for a number of years. I think that point should be made known to the Canadian people, because the government is misleading the House in attempting to say that it will uphold its obligation in the field of medical care. It is not.
It is for this reason that I think the debate before the House is very important. I want to say a few words about that, not just because I come from the province of Saskatchewan where, as you know, Mr. Speaker, CCF and NDP governments pioneered hospitalization and medical care under the premiership of the hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), and later under Woodrow Lloyd who succeeded him as premier. This program has since become the norm for medical care and hospitalization in Canada.
In those days there were many tough fights in respect of the principle of universality of medical care. Who was the opposition in those days? I remember well, during the medicare crisis, when the Liberal party, led by the late Ross Thatcher who later became premier, led a group of citizens in opposition to medical care in the province of Saskatchewan. They opposed it in the province with great vigour and determination. Today, after many years of convincing and persuading the federal government about the need for universal medical care where everyone, regardless of financial background, can have the same availability of medical care, we see the federal government taking a retrograde step in gradually backing out of medical care.
I think this party and this House should make sure that every Canadian citizen knows what is happening. This has broad ramifications, not only in respect of medical care but in respect of the way the party on the other side of the House looks at federalism, co-operation and the type of country it wants to create and which I suggest will be created by this type of legislation. The country will be much worse off than it is today.
If we have an increase this year and next year which exceeds the limitations imposed by the government, then the provinces will be faced with a couple of options. The wealthy provinces like Ontario can continue to provide services for their people because they have the financial base with which to do so. Many people in Alberta, Ontario, British Columbia, and perhaps a few other provinces, may not suffer much because of the legislation before the House today. I do not know whether they will or not. They may not, because those provinces have resources they can spend on health care and medicine. But as my colleague from Saskatchewan says, we will do our own thing in Saskatchewan despite the fact that we do not have the wealth and resources of the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia. We did it before.
I alluded to the fight we had with the doctors' committee in Saskatchewan. This was a fight against the first universal medical care plan in North America. The reactionary
March 17, 1976

Liberal party at that time led that fight and said time and time again that they would not rest until medical care was destroyed in the province of Saskatchewan and never came about in Canada. Now we see a retrograde step in this direction.
What will happen in respect of provinces which do not have the same resources as wealthy provinces such as Ontario? What will happen in Newfoundland, in poor little Prince Edward Island, in New Brunswick and in some of the other provinces which cannot afford to put much provincial money into the provision of health services on a par with provinces such as Ontario? These provinces will have to scale down the quality of medicine they provide to their citizens. They do not have any option. The quality of medicine will be scaled down. Its availability will be scaled down. The hospitals and facilities they have will not be expanded because they will not have the necessary funds.
Let us look at a third option which was looked at and adopted by a Liberal government of Saskatchewan. I refer to the imposition of a deterrent fee. That was imposed by the Liberal party in the province of Saskatchewan. That is one way to get more money to pay for medical care and hospitalization. I remember the deterrent fee very well. That was back in the days of the late premier Ross Thatcher in the province of Saskatchewan.
I remember those days well because that was the time I really became active in politics, in the mid-1960s, when I saw fees of $2 and $2.50 being imposed on people who visited a doctor. Who are the people involved? They are the people least able to afford to pay doctors' bills-the older people and those with large families. They are the people who cannot afford it. The Liberal party in the province of Saskatchewan brought in the deterrent fee, or the usury fee. I think that is a very regressive way in which to finance any plan, particularly a plan such as this which should be universally acceptable to everyone.
I believe medical care should be free to everyone. I do not mean simply the type of care we have today. I include pharmacare through which people who need drugs could get them at cost. I include denticare. Dental care should be provided to everyone regardless of income. I also refer to the provision of hearing aids and everything else people need for their physical well-being or care. That will not happen if this bill should pass.
If the federal government starts to scale down the amount of money it provides in respect of medical care and hospitalization, the provinces will not be able to extend or expand the services they want to provide to the citizens of this country. That is the reason we oppose this bill and will fight it as strongly as we can. It seems to me that whenever we oppose something on principle, the government says that we are being obstructionist, that we are carrying on a filibuster, or we are trying to obstruct the legislation. Then, as in this case, they bring in closure. If the government wants co-operation from the opposition, the last thing it should do is introduce closure or time allocation. The government should be open to amendments, because I think in this case, like in the case in which we have been involved in the last few days, it is the opposition parties that are sensitive to the feelings of the people.
I think the government opposite will not be there for many more months. I think the government is marking
Medical Care Act
time. I think this is another example of a government that has had too much power for too long. It is too arrogant. Can you tell me, Mr. Speaker, of any province which agrees with the type of proposal being brought down by the Minister' of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde)? We have NDP provinces, one Social Credit province, and Liberal and Conservative provinces. What about Premier Reagan of Nova Scotia; what does he think about the bill which is before us today?
What about Robert Bourassa in Quebec? Why is the federal government interested in curtailing health costs, and why is the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. McRae) asking where we should cut? If the government is interested in cutting, why does it not talk to the provinces and work something out on a bilateral basis? Why is the federal government, instead, bringing in a bill in a unilateral and authoritarian way? That is not the way to govern this country. That is going back.
This Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has talked like a university professor conducting a philosophical class about how we should govern, what kind of country we should have and what kind of federal union we should have. I do not mind making the charge that I think this Prime Minister has done more to provoke disunity in this country than any other prime minister in the history of Canada. I suggest there is more disunity now than there ever has been in this country.
Recently I spent a few days in the province of Quebec. I was surprised that almost all the people I spoke to criticized the federal Prime Minister for the attitude he took toward the Prime Minister of Quebec. I found this criticism also in the journals I read, and I heard it in the commentaries. It is this type of heavy-handed attitude which this government has taken for far too long on almost every issue before us to which I object.


An hon. Member:: Read Le Jour.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I have read more than just Le Jour. I have read La Presse, Le Devoir and other newspapers in the province of Quebec. I have heard commentators en fran^ais and in English in the province of Quebec, and I sense in that province a deep frustration over the heavy-handed way this government is implementing its programs across this country. The same is true in western Canada. We resent the heavy-handed way this government is conducting its affairs. I think the medical care bill is one of them. This is supposed to be a federal state. It is not supposed to be a unitary state. It is not supposed to be a state where there is one central government deciding what legislation there will be, introducing it in the House and ignoring the various parts of the country. We have a sharing of powers in this country. We have a federal state where the federal government should sit down, talk to the provinces and negotiate with them. If that is not done, there will be more and more problems and unrest in Canada. This government is provoking disunity and many troubles which are yet to come.


Mr. Benjamin:: You should see premiers on Sundays instead of judges.

March 17, 1976
Medical Care Act


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In a few brief words, those are the concerns I have about the bill before us today. I believe it is a retrograde step. It is a bill which will prevent expanding our health and medical services in this country. It is a bill about which there was no consultation with the provinces. It is a bill which will be bad and which will be remembered as such when this government is defeated in 1978 or whenever an election is called.


Mr. Mike Landers (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know very much about medicine, but a number of letters have been written to me out of which I have picked three. The only reason I am going to make the contents of these letters public is so the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) will have an opportunity at the committee stage to respond in public to the concerns of these constituents. These letters are not necessarily complimentary of the government, although I have received many which are. The first letter begins "Dear Mike," which has a nice touch to it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mike Landers: The letter reads as follows:
I am writing as a member of the board of the Atlantic Research Centre for Mental Retardation to express my concern about the current financial squeeze on medical research in this country, particularly as it relates to the Atlantic Research Centre for mental retardation, Halifax, N.S. The centre serves the Atlantic provinces and is the only research body in mental retardation in this region.
The potential that research has for decreasing the incidents of mental retardation speaks clearly for itself. The investment in human terms and in dollars and cents vis-a-vis custodial, residential, development and vocational services reinforces the good, common sense approach to research in this field.
May I strongly urge your positive consideration respecting government grants for research activities. I feel research programs, such as those carried on by the ARCMR, are imperative and must continue because of the potential for benefit to us all.
I appreciate your consideration of the above.
Sincerely, Gordon Foster.
The address stated is Hampton, New Brunswick. I might point out that Gordon Foster was a defeated Liberal candidate in the last provincial election in the province of New Brunswick. I know this letter does not relate directly to the bill before the House; however, I would like the minister to have an opportunity to respond to it at the committee stage. The next letter says "Dear Mr. Landers"-a little more respectful than the first, but less friendly. The letter reads:
I am writing to protest in the strongest possible terms the government's recent so called "freeze" of the budget of the Medical Research Council. As all members of the government must know, the purported freeze is, in fact, a reduction in federal expenditure for medical research, since there is not so much as an additional allotment to allow for inflation.
Canada's expenditure per capita for medical research, when compared with that of other western nations, is disgracefully low.
I am just quoting from the letter. I do not know whether the facts are correct. The letter goes on:
One is forced to the conclusion that, because medical research has never been an issue of political significance to voters, it has been considered expendable.
I am sure that every Canadian medical scientist is prepared to do his or her utmost to co-operate in fighting inflation-but only if scientists

receive treatment comparable to labour unions. I therefore urge that the government reconsider its regrettable action in this matter.
The letter is signed by Dr. E. Paras, MD, FRCP(C), Saint John, New Brunswick. The third letter is similar in content to the second letter I read, and I will not go into the details of it. I should just like to point out these two letters to the minister. I will send him copies of each. I ask him to respond in public, at the committee stage, to the concerns raised by these people, one a constituent and one not a constituent. I should also like to point out that it is difficult to please everyone when the government is cutting back. I was only concerned about these two letters. I intend to vote for the bill, but I wish to bring these letters to the attention of the minister.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I was not going to participate in this debate but I changed my mind because of some of the things said by those who have spoken. I am sure hon. members will recognize what I have to say for its usual impartiality and not partisanship. What has struck me about this debate has been the absence of any reference to the 40 per cent of Canada which lies north of the sixtieth parallel. All I heard from the last speaker from the New Democratic party, behind whom sits the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth), was all sorts of problems which are provincial in nature, forgetting completely about the two northern territories. That is all I have heard from the other side as well.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Erik Nielsen: Yet foisted upon us in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, without notification, to say nothing of the complete absence of any consultation, is the legislation we are discussing today. The hon. member for Northwest Territories, since he has been here, and I since I have been here-which is somewhat longer-have been trying to convince the government to include the two northern territories in these discussions. I am very sorry that the minister, who has sat patiently throughout this debate, is not here at the moment to hear this. We have been trying, without success, to convince the government that it is essential to include the two northern territories in these federal-provincial discussions when it concerns money out of the pockets of Canadians who live above the sixtieth parallel. We tried to convince the government that it is fitting and proper to have representatives from the two legislative assemblies in the two territories attend federal-provincial discussions on matters such as this. This is not an isolated case.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see the minister is now back in his seat to hear this. Since he has assumed his portfolio I have asked if he is going to include representation from the northern territories in these discussions, but unfortunately I have had no success. The minister frowns. I know he is going to say that they had representatives at these meetings. That is true. They have attended the meetings, but with the status of what the government is pleased to call "observer". They invite elected representatives of the two legislative bodies in the north to come down and listen, but not to have anything to say about what goes into
March 17, 1976

the cost-sharing arrangements between the federal government and the two territorial governments.


Mr. Lalonde:: That is part of the federal delegation.


Erik Nielsen: The federal delegation that is there does not have input in the sense that the first ministers of the provinces have a real, substantive voice in what goes into the legislation and the arrangements that are made. It seems to me, and I am quite sure the hon. member for the Northwest Territories will agree with me, that it would not hurt the federal government's position if they were to invite the elected representatives of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories to have some meaningful input into the design of the cost-sharing arrangement.
After all, we are being asked to pay on the same basis as the residents of the provinces in respect of cost participation in schemes such as this. Whereas the provincial people have a voice through their elected legislatures, we in the north have none. I urge upon the minister an alteration of the policy of merely having observer status at this conference. We have come some small way along the road of progress toward portfolio responsibility in the Yukon territory. At the last federal-provincial conference which dealt with this subject, a member of the legislative assembly in the Yukon, Mrs. Whyard, attended but she could not say anything. She came back to the Yukon and told us it was useless to go to conferences in Ottawa if we were not allowed to say anything. I leave that recommendation with the minister. As he is a sincere gentleman, I know he will give favourable consideration to these representations and see to it that next time our people will at least be allowed to open their mouths.
Mr. Speaker, I now want to speak about something more germane to the proceedings that went on here yesterday and this morning and, indeed, have been proceeding for some weeks. By coincidence, what I have to say with respect to pressure being brought to bear improperly by ministers and government in the affairs of the administration of justice has direct relevance to what we are debating here. Not only were we not permitted to participate in discussions when medicare was first imposed upon us in the Yukon territory, but the whole weight of government was brought to bear in order to ensure that the people of the Yukon territory would abide by the law imposed upon us.
What pressures were brought to bear? Doctors in the Yukon are complaining that because they are not registered under the medicare scheme, they are not being paid. To what lengths did the government go in order to enforce their legislation? The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) will clearly recall the case of Dr. Wigby who was the only doctor in a small community in the Yukon called Watson Lake. Because he did not personally register under the medicare scheme, he was charged, convicted and thrown in jail. He was the only doctor in the community-the nurse had gone on some kind of sitdown strike-so the community was completely without medical attention. They were not satisfied with throwing the doctor in jail once; they have done it twice. All because he did not register personally with medicare. He complied with the legislation with respect to his responsibilities in
Medical Care Act
all ways except that he did not personally register under this scheme.
The government adapts the attitude that as long as they have a hold-out like Dr. Wigby, they are going to put him in jail. He spent two terms of two weeks each in jail because he is not registered. I dare say that if he continues to be stubborn the government will throw him in jail again.
This is one example of the kind of pressure that is exerted, Mr. Speaker. But it gets even more serious. They were not content, so they looked around for the prominent people in the community, wondering who they could charge next to make sure the laws were complied with. They found that the mayor of Whitehorse was not registered, so they charged him for failing to register under the medicare scheme. They would have thrown him in jail but-


Steve Eugene Paproski: Was he a Liberal?


Erik Nielsen: No, indeed he was not. The mayor of Whitehorse received some very sound legal advice, however, and he registered under the scheme.


An hon. Member:: What did you charge him?


Erik Nielsen: Who could be more prominent in our community than the mayor of Whitehorse? They looked around again and they chose a member of the Yukon legislative assembly. They were not satisfied with Dr. Wigby and the mayor, so the next victim on the list of the vindictive government was a member of the legislative assembly, Mr. McKinnon. They charged him, but fortunately he had some very sound legal advice and he registered and thus escaped the consequences of the charge. The government was not satisfied to leave it there. They looked around for even more prominent victims-and who did they find? None less than the present Speaker of the Yukon legislative assembly. They charged him with failing to register under the medicare scheme.
The whole story of these pressures is the effort to cow the people of the Yukon into complying with this heavyhanded federal government imposing this scheme-


An hon. Member:: How many did you represent?


Erik Nielsen: I did not represent this one; he was a Liberal. Hon. members laugh, Mr. Speaker, but he is no longer a Liberal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Wherever he got his advice, he got it a little late because he was fined $500 for failing to register. Maybe it had something to do with that.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, it is always-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde).


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to receive a visit from the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) in this House. I certainly hate to interrupt him

March 17, 1976
Medical Care Act
and appear to cut short his speech in any way, shape or form, but we have had complaints that this debate was being cut short and I can understand that other hon. members want to participate. This issue is one of great importance.
I would submit to you, however, Mr. Speaker, that we have a very broad interpretation of the rule of debate on second reading, but I fail to see, unless the hon. member comes to the point pretty soon, what this has to do with the bill which deals with capping medicare, and only that. I wonder if the hon. member for Yukon is in order. I ask this with great hesitation, as I should hate to see his intervention in the debate cut short.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest that the hon. member confine his remarks to the subject matter of Bill C-68.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, if I may speak to the minister's point of order, I suggest that my colleague for Northwest Territories and I enjoy the distinction, if you look at it that way, of being unique in this House. Whereas other members of the House represent constituencies in provinces, and a provincial body may interpose itself between the federal government and the people of the province, the hon. member for Northwest Territories and I must deal directly with the federal government. Therefore, I am saying now those things which would be said if we were given a voice at federal-provincial conferences. But we are not given that voice and are not allowed to say these things. This House is the only forum in which we can present certain views.


Marc Lalonde: Come to my estimates.


Erik Nielsen: I enjoy attending when the minister's estimates are discussed, but that does not help elected representatives of the people of the Yukon in their deliberations in the legislative assembly. That process does not allow them to provide input to the minister's decisions. I submit that what I say is pertinent to the bill, to moneys being spent on medicare and the manner in which they are spent. Allow me to cite one more example. The government was not satisfied with leaving matters there. It looked for the most prominent person it could find in the Yukon in order to make an example of him in the enforcement of the medicare law. Who did it find?


Marc Lalonde: The hon. member for Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: That is right, the hon. member for Yukon, as the minister knows. So they charged him. Where could he go for good, sound advice? He was tried and convicted of failing to register for medicare. What did the hon. member for Yukon do? He obtained the best legal advice he could-from the then minister of justice who now is Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang). The then minister of justice said, "That is silly. Saskatchewan has a medicare scheme but I belong to the Ontario scheme. Why can you not belong to the scheme to which I belong?" The minister belonged to one scheme for 19 years. At that I appealed and the appeal court reversed the decision. That is an example of the government's heavy-handed methods, to use the

phrase used by the NDP member who last spoke, in enforcing medicare in the Yukon.


An hon. Member:: It's a good thing you didn't see a judge.


Erik Nielsen: Now I shall pass to something more serious. I am enjoying the debate and do not wish to change the tone. Nevertheless, what I shall now raise has a direct bearing on matters being discussed in the House. One of the minister's employees in northern health services, Dr. Connolly, felt it was wrong of the city of Whitehorse to continue dumping raw sewage into the Yukon River from a sewage system designed, installed and paid for by the federal government and then handed to the city of Whitehorse. He laid a charge against the city of Whitehorse under a medical health ordinance in the Yukon. Dr. Connolly then was acting as medical health officer for the Yukon but was an employee of the minister's department.
He was telephoned by someone in the commissioner's office, the commissioner's office being under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan), and was told, "Withdraw that charge." Dr. Connolly, more credit to him, said, "No, sir, I will not withdraw the charge. An offence has been committed and it will be proceeded with." There was a series of telephone calls from the commissioner's office, culminating with this message, "Either you withdraw the charge or I will communicate with my minister, who will communicate with the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who will require you to withdraw the charge. If you do not comply, you will be fired."
According to my information, all communications were beneath ministerial level: the ministers personally were not involved; the officials were. As it happened, there was a telephone communication from the commissioner's office to the office of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, hence to the office of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It went back down to regional office in Edmonton and back up to Dr. Connolly in Whitehorse. He was told, "You will either withdraw the charge and say publicly that the matter is proceeding satisfactorily and that is why you are withdrawing the charge, or you will be fired." The minister shakes his head, but he does not know this because he was not there personally.


An hon. Member:: Were you there?


Erik Nielsen: Hon. members will agree, surely, that that is unacceptable pressure. I was told this by Dr. Connolly. There is no better source. Section 127 (2) of the Criminal Code provides:
Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner other than a manner described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for ten years.


An hon. Member:: Was he fired?


Erik Nielsen: I agree that if pressure had been brought to bear on Dr. Connolly before the charge was laid, there would be no difficulty. But after the charge was laid and placed in the hands of the Crown attorney, pressure was brought to bear on Dr. Connolly. He was threatened with loss of his job if he did not withdraw. At that stage he
March 17, 1976

threw up his hands and said, "I will not press charges." By that time the matter was in the hands of the Crown attorney. I am not suggesting for a moment that the Department of Justice brought pressure to bear on the Crown attorney. Even if it did, I have such high regard for him that I know he would not succumb. Nonetheless, there was communication to determine if there was sufficient evidence. There was evidence and the charge proceeded. A fine of $100 was the result.
I maintain that the circumstances I have disclosed are serious enough to warrant investigation. It is not my job or the job of any other member to judge guilt or innocence. But it is the government's responsibility to investigate the matter to see if there is a prima facie case for a charge to be laid under section 127 of the Criminal Code. If it is deemed that there is sufficient evidence to support a prima facie case under section 127, the government should see to it that every official of government involved in bringing pressure to bear is charged under the section. Let the courts decide guilt or innocence.
Message from the Senate
I see that my time has almost expired. May I call it six o'clock?



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill C-71, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to the Crown Liability Act, the Immigration Act and the Parole Act, with amendments, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.
At 6.01 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, March 18, 1976