1976-01-30

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
I English I

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon, J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert): Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity arising from a request made by the Clerk of the Privy Council, Mr. Peter Michael Pitfield, on behalf of the cabinet for a legal opinion from the law officers of the Crown on the question as to how the name of the capital city of Canada could be changed from Ottawa to the National Capital Region. In reply, the deputy attorney general stated that it could be done by cabinet issuing an order in council advising the Governor General to issue a proclamation to change the name of the seat of government to National Capital Region, whereupon the Governor General would issue the required proclamation in the name of the Queen under the Great Seal of Canada. Such proclamation, according to the advice given, would issue from the Governor General as representative of the Queen and not from the Queen personally. It was added, however, that it should issue in her name, as the Queen is referred to specifically in section 16 of the British North America Act, which provides that:
Until the Queen otherwise directs the Seat of the Government of Canada shall be Ottawa.
The fact that the legal opinion has been asked for as to whether action could be taken without parliament's approval reveals that the government is considering changing the name of the capital, a course that Canadians everywhere will resent, and furthermore reveals a flagrant contempt of parliament.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Diefenbaker:: I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That this House condemn such action that would circumvent by cabinet the rights of the Mayor and Council and the people of the city of Ottawa, of parliament and the constitution of Canada, and that the said matter shall be placed before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for investigation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
l English}

Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question either to the Acting Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance arising out of a report that the railway unions yesterday rejected the wage offer and broke off negotiations and associated reports that the railway companies believe that their offer is the highest they can make under the government's wage controls. Has the Anti-Inflation Board in fact indicated to the parties to this very important dispute what increase it would permit?
[DOT] (ino)


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do not have specific information on any discussions between the board and the parties in that matter. I would comment that we have, of course, taken the position that the board should not enter directly as a participant in the collective bargaining. However, if the parties seek assistance in the process of arriving at a contract with regard to clarification on the application of the program, the board would do so. I would have to make a specific inquiry to see if anything of that kind has occurred up to this point.


POSSIBLE STATEMENT BY GOVERNMENT OF MAXIMUM WAGE INCREASE PERMITTED RAILWAY EMPLOYEES
Robert Lorne Stanfield: again direct my supplementary to either of the two hon. gentlemen. In view of the fundamental importance of avoiding a fruitless and perhaps disastrous rail strike, is the government prepared to have the maximum increase it will permit under this control program determined in advance of the strike with adequate provision for both sides in the dispute to be heard because of the importance of this matter to the country?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I really anticipated the question in the response I have just given. The board, in its November 7 statement set out the procedures it will follow in this regard. I share the concern of the Leader of the Opposition about the impact of the strike and the desirability, particularly if both sides to the discussion would find it of assistance, to have a clarification of the application of the anti-inflation program to their situation so that there would be no misunderstanding which could lead to any regrettable work stoppage.

January 30, 1976
Oral Questions


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the fact that this question goes far beyond the interest of the parties involved in the dispute and in view of the fact the government's controls program obviously restricts the scope of collective bargaining, and it is pure hypocrisy for anybody on the government side to pretend that it does not, why is the government not prepared to take the initiative to determine and announce in advance of a possible strike the precise scope of the increase it will sanction rather than permit confusion to continue with the possibility of great danger being done to our country and its citizens?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, that question has already been responded to several times in my answers. It is very clear that the board should not itself become the arbitrator in any collective bargaining dispute in Canada. If there is need for clarification about the application of the program, I repeat for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition that under its well defined procedures the board will be quite prepared to assist the parties in this regard. That seems to be the most sensible means of conducting this program.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the importance of rail transportation generally to the country, and its importance in preserving investor confidence and the confidence of the business community, and indeed our whole economy, are there any studies underway in advance of the situation with regard to the essential nature of rail transportation and the cost of even a short breakdown which would be imposed on the business community? What is the view of the government with regard to the essential nature of this service?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: As the
Minister of Finance has said, Mr. Speaker, the government would regret any breakdown in these negotiations and hopes that a settlement can be reached without any stoppage. However, I think it would be very unwise to indicate that we anticipate any breakdown.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD BOARD REFUSAL TO PERMIT TORONTO UNIVERSITY LIBRARY WORKERS WAGE INCREASE TO PERMITTED MINIMUM-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the minister has stated that under the anti-inflation program persons earning less than $7,000 could be allowed increases that would bring their wages up to $3.50 an hour, or $7,280 a year, and in a recent decision the Anti-Inflation Board has turned down a settlement between the University of Toronto and the Canadian Union of Public Employees which would have given the universi-

ty's lowest paid library workers an increase that would still have left them $355 below the figure permitted under the regulations, I should like to ask the minister how he explains this and reconciles it with the stated intention of the government.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to inquire to see whether the allegations put forward by the hon. member are accurate.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. If the allegations I have put forward are accurate, may I have assurance from the minister that he will support University of Toronto librarians in their efforts for an equitable and fair wage settlement.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Well, that surely is a good example of a quintessentially hypothetical question.


SUGGESTED INSTRUCTIONS TO BOARD TO APPLY MAXIMUM PERMITTED WAGE INCREASE EQUALLY TO ALL
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I have a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. While the board is ignoring guidelines for minimums, Mr. Pepin has told Manitoba doctors that the maximum $2,400 increase will be interpreted as applying not to individual doctors but to doctors as a group, including interns, residents and other salaried doctors as well as already highly-paid specialists. In view of the government's expressed desire to ensure equal treatment, will the minister instruct the board to apply the $2,400 maximum to all individuals.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, the board is provided for by the law and the regulations enacted. I think the hon. gentleman recognizes that any suggestion of instructions of that kind would be inappropriate.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Justice.
This morning, the Journal de Montreal reported that the Supreme Court would refuse to rule on the crime probe case. As all those delays only increase the public's concern about the alleged influences brought to bear in the courts, would the minister agree that an immediate inquiry be conducted in the Supreme Court to ensure that the international and local mafia does not prevent certain hon. members from taking action?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the last part of the question I will not conduct such an inquiry because I am quite sure-I am positive-that the situation is not as the question might imply. I have not read the newspaper reports to which the hon. member refers, nor any pronouncement from the
January 30, 1976

court on the subject, and I would not want to comment further until I have.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Defence and the Prime Minister I will direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. In light of the apparent conflict between the Prime Minister's and the Minister of National Defence's perception of the free enterprise system will the Acting Prime Minister inform the House whose view represents government policy?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Minister of National Defence spoke without a text.


Walter David Baker: He delivered it to the press.


Mitchell William Sharp: However, the Prime Minister speaks for the Government of Canada and my understanding is that the Minister of National Defence supports him.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, in order to avoid any further confusion over this issue will the House leader inform the House which members of the cabinet are new society ministers and which are old society ministers.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.


FINANCE
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I thank members for their warm welcome. I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Given that Jack Biddell of the Anti-Inflation Board has pointed out that the high cost of money is a major contributor to inflation in this country and that the key to containing inflation over the long haul is to lower interest rates, does the government intend to take any immediate action on this crucial matter and, as well, is the cabinet giving priority consideration to general economic advice from members of the Anti-Inflation Board?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the government has frequently stated its policy of reducing the rate of growth of the money supply as one of
Oral Questions
the means of supporting the anti-inflation program, and therefore the proposal by Mr. Biddell made in a public statement that there should be a substantial growth of the money supply is one we would not accept. Perhaps Mr. Biddell stated in his remarks that this represented his opinion. I would have to say that his suggestion that the money supply be greatly inflated, concomitant with the ability to reduce interest rates, is not one that we would accept.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I have a supplementary question on this general matter of interest rates. Because of the crucial importance of interest rates to the whole economy, would the minister say if the government policy on interest rates and subsequent discussion is to be on the agenda of the finance minister's conference next week?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Not specifically, although this is the beginning of the year general review of economic and financial policies. Of course, the current level of interest rates reflects the restraint on the growth of the money supply and, in that sense, I am sure interest rates will be discussed in the context of the anti-inflation program.


MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-DATE OF DECISION TO CONSTRUCT-REASON FOR FAILURE TO GIVE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO INTERVENORS IN HEARING
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In light of yesterday's publication of a study by the Science Council of Canada which concludes that in effect the current National Energy Board hearings and the Berger inquiry are a sham, will the minister confirm that a decision to go ahead with the construction of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline is already government policy?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there are hearings going on now before the Berger Commission on certain of the environmental factors and the effect upon the native peoples. The National Energy Board is also conducting hearings. Under the law the National Energy Board has to make a decision before the government can do so.


Douglas Charles Neil: The Acting Prime Minister certainly has not answered my question, so I will pose a second one. Will the hon. gentleman explain why, in spite of the precedent set by the funding of groups presenting evidence to the Berger commission, no assistance of any kind has been forthcoming to public interest intervenors at the National Energy Board's hearings, some of whom have made substantial personal financial sacrifices to keep their intervention alive?


Mitchell William Sharp: I think this question has been answered on a number of occasions and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources dealt with the matter when it was before the committee.

January 30,1976
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


DRAFT PIPELINE TREATY WITH UNITED STATES-REQUEST FOR REPORT
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the Canadian Press story out of Washington yesterday that Canada and the United States initialed a joint pipeline draft treaty yesterday, would the minister advise the House very briefly what this treaty covers?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not want to interrupt the minister but I am concerned, however, that since the minister yesterday gave an indication of his intention to make a statement, his answer to this question might overlap. If they are on different subjects, the minister could go ahead and answer the question, but if they cover the same subject, then perhaps it would be best to await the minister's statement.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I propose to make a statement on a different subject later today. It is true that yesterday a joint pipeline treaty was initialled ad referendum between Canada and the United States. The text will be submitted to each government for approval. The main provisions of the treaty will provide for the delivery of hydrocarbons in transit through each country for delivery to the other, with certain provisions relating to throughput and non-discriminatory treatment. These are the principles which will be considered and, if they can finally be approved, I believe it will be a very important step ahead in our bilateral relations.


DRAFT PIPELINE TREATY WITH UNITED STATES-REQUEST FOR REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, will the minister give assurance that the details of the treaty will be referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works before the government makes a final decision?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have no objection at a certain point to have the treaty, if it is finally approved by both governments, considered by a standing committee.


SUGGESTED WITHDRAWAL OF AMBASSADOR TO CHILE TO PROTEST INHUMAN TREATMENT OF CITIZENS
Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Last week, the New York Times published extracts of a book by former Chile Christian democratic President Eduardo Frei in which he denounces the violation of human rights by the facist regime of General Pinochet who, he says, is responsible for torture, political assassinations of his political opponents and repression of labour unions.

Considering the high and strong credibility of former President Frei who is universally known for his moderation and was one of the foremost statesmen in South America in the 60's and who was, by the way, himself opposed to the Allende government, and considering that similar disclosures have recently been made, in particular by Dr. Sheila Cassidy, a British physician,. ..


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a question, will he put it now?


Louis Duclos: In view of those facts, will the minister advise the House whether Canada intends to remain silent and ignore the revolting behaviour of that military dictatorship or will make known in unequivocal terms its reprobation of those barbaric acts by recalling our ambassador from Santiago, if only on a short time basis?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have not given any consideration to the possibility suggested by the hon. member, but Canada has made its position very clear on the question of human rights in Chile. We have made our position known on several occasions and in several ways, both directly to the government of Chile and at the United Nations. We have urged that human rights be respected in that country in accordance with the universal declaration on human rights, so there is no equivocation with respect to the position of the Government of Canada.
However, I believe our concern with respect to human rights in Chile has taken a much more concrete form than the expressions I mentioned. Since the coup d'etat, Canada has played and continues to play a leading role in the resettlement of people from that country occasioned by the change in regime, and so far nearly 4,000 people have been authorized to come to Canada under our special immigration program. I believe that that is an extremely important aspect of our treatment of the question of human rights in Chile and ought to be borne in mind and related to the consequences which might occur to that important humanitarian program if we took action such as suggested by the hon. gentleman.


RESEARCH
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Science and Technology. Dr. Schneider, the president of the National Research Council, made a statement to the effect that Canada will not be able to hold its own in the international market for new and improved manufactured products in a few years time because of the research cuts announced by the President of the Treasury Board, and there were similar statements by the executive director of the Science Council, which views are supported by most scientists in Canada. Would the minister indicate whether he is bringing these important views to the attention of his cabinet colleagues with a view to reinstating the cut proposed by the President of the Treasury Board?
January 30, 1976


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I think the President of the Treasury Board is fully aware of the consequences of the program of restraint being put forward by the government of Canada. There is no question about it, a program of restraint will lead to some diminution of efforts that might otherwise have been made. I think the hon. gentleman has perhaps strikingly overstated the views expressed by both Dr. Schneider and the chairman of the science council.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how I can overstate their views when I quoted exactly.


EFFECT OF REDUCTION IN BUDGET FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH-GOVERNMENT POSITION
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the directives which the chairman of the medical research council, Dr. Brown, has sent to the deans of medical colleges in which he goes into great detail about the very serious cuts to be made in medical research as a result of the announcement by the President of the Treasury Board, and in view of the unanimous feelings of the deans of medical colleges and medical researchers that those cuts will mean not only immediate but long term and indeed permanent damage to medical research in this country, will the minister discuss with the President of the Treasury Board the elimination of these proposals which amount to a mere $4 million? I am sure the minister would agree these cuts could be made in other services less important than medical research.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, of course it is a question I discussed at length with my colleagues during several weeks. The President of the Treasury Board is aware of the point of view of the hon. member. However, I will be glad to point out again to the President of the Treasury Board the opinion of the hon. member.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Solicitor General similar to one I asked prior to the recess and questions put yesterday by the right hon. member for Prince Albert to the Minister of Justice. When the Solicitor General brings forward the bill on capital punishment I should like to know whether it will stand alone, separate, apart and clearcut from any other matter contained in the Criminal Code or any other matter as far as criminal law is concerned?
Oral Questions


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, there will be a separate bill dealing with capital punishment and the measures to replace capital punishment.


NATIONAL CAPITAL
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister in connection with a motion I made a few moments ago. Has the cabinet directed the Clerk of the Privy Council, Mr. Pitfield, to communicate with the Deputy Attorney General of Canada to ascertain his views respecting the non-statutory procedures available to change the name of the federal seat of government from Ottawa to the National Capital Region?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to inquire. I am not quite sure whether this is so or not. It would not of course, require the cabinet to instruct the Clerk of the Privy Council to make this inquiry. At any rate, I shall make inquiries.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question. Possibly the minister can tell the House whether there has been any discussion in connection with this matter and, in particular, as to the areas that were to be comprised within the new capital area. Was the government advised by the deputy minister in response to the request of Mr. Pitfield that there would be no need to define in a proclamation the precise boundaries of the capital region? The area should be identifiable since the boundaries of the National Capital Region are precisely defined in the schedule to the National Capital Act.
I should like to know the circumstances under which Mr. Pitfield made inquiries in connection with doing away with the city of Ottawa as the capital and the substitution of the national capital area of Canada. Why was this matter being considered and did this new capital area include any parts additional to the present capital area or the city of Ottawa? What actually happened that resulted in the request by the Clerk of the Privy Council to find out, behind the back of parliament, whether the government could change the name by order in council?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I said in my original answer I shall make inquiries about the circumstances under which this inquiry was directed.


An hon. Member:: Pitfield doesn't tell you anything?


Mitchell William Sharp: I think the right hon. gentleman is reading a great deal into a question that could arise for various reasons. I really reject the general purport of his question which seems to be that the government would go behind parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: That is exactly what I asked.


Mitchell William Sharp: Oh, no. This question is to the Deputy Attorney General and it is a question that might have been
10480

January 30, 1976
Oral Questions
directed to him for many reasons. If any action like this were taken I am sure parliament would be aware of it.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture in connection with the cow-calf industry in Canada. This arises out of discussions the minister had with his provincial counterparts in December. Can the minister advise the House whether a federal-provincial cow-calf stabilization program is being developed and whether any progress has been made in efforts to shore up this badly shaken industry?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I said several times in this House. A program will start on January 1, 1976 and terminate at the end of December, 1976, covering the calendar year for beef in Canada. I would say progress is being made in the discussions that are taking place.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that a great deal of damage has been done, going back as far as September, could the minister state whether consideration is being given to making this program retroactive in order to help those producers who have suffered serious damage as a result of depressed prices?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to make it retroactive because some provinces have programs under which payments have been made already. I read in a news release this morning that Ontario is paying out $22 million. Other provinces have different programs, so I do not know how we could make it retroactive and also make it work in a fair and equitable manner. I think that would be an utter impossibility. That was one of the tremendous obstacles we faced last fall when we tried to make a national plan. The minister of agriculture in the hon. member's province wants a national plan and so do I.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The minister is addressing himself to the provinces that have had their own specific program other than the province of Alberta where 40 per cent or 50 per cent of the beef is produced. That province has not had a stabilization program. It has waited for the federal government to adopt its stabilization program consistent with the Agricultural Stabilization Act. We are part of Canada and I think the minister should recognize that.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs who, I hope, has resolved this year to keep the lid on just about everything. Can the minister comment on the advice given to prospective home canners in British Columbia by the outgoing provincial minister of consumer affairs in British Columbia who, as she was leaving her department, suggested that they, as individuals, should write the new minister of consumer affairs detailing their requirements as the only way of ensuring supplies? I would think that we have appointed ministers of consumer affairs, both provincially and federally, in order to make such action unnecessary. Has the minister taken steps, while there is still time, to monitor next summer's supply, and can he reassure the home canners of British Columbia?
[DOT] (U40)


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the latest information I received from the officials of my department was that two Canadian manufacturers have increased their production of canning jar lids. On the other hand, I am informed that two American companies which supply more particularly the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia have also stepped up production. Moreover, one importer in British Columbia has already found on the foreign market canning jar lids which he intends to import to meet the demand during the current year.


Howard Earl Johnston: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I have received numerous complaints concerning the quality of canning lids of Canadian manufacture which, in the absence of American imports, have been the only ones available in the west for some years. As this is a matter of interprovincial trade, has the federal minister taken steps to monitor the quality, and assist or advise manufacturers in this regard?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of such complaints. If the hon. member wants to send them to me, I shall bring them to the attention of the officials of my department.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board.
This week, in Montreal, the leader of the Parti national populaire stated, at a press conference, that negotiations would be held between the Quebec and Ottawa governments with a view to having Ottawa help contribute financially towards paying off the expected Olympic Games deficit, in exchange for which Quebec would agree not to put any major obstacles to the repatriation of the Canadian constitution. As this statement is all in all of great interest to the general public, for the information of that
January 30, 1976

public, can the minister tell the House whether or not such proposals have been made by the parties concerned?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, obviously, the leader of that new party is not aware of what is going on.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. Since the former minister of transport and the Secretary of State for External Affairs announced in 1973, with great hoopla and fanfare, a building program at what is left of the Canadian Coastguard College at Cape Breton, and since there is depression rate unemployment in that area of Cape Breton, will the minister investigate the situation, ascertain why construction has not gone ahead and expedite it, so that there may be at least short-term employment in the area?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, as I told the hon. gentleman the other day, I will be glad to investigate the matter.


Robert Muir: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Calgary Centre.


Robert Muir: I will remember that, Mr. Speaker. Some other hon. members were allowed three supplementaries.


OIL-GOVERNMENT INTENTIONS WITH REGARD TO MECHANISM FOR SUBSIDIZING IMPORTED CRUDE
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The legislation creating the Energy Supplies Allocation Board called for this agency to cease operation and disappear in June, this year. As this would leave no mechanism for subsidizing imported crude, and therefore no mechanism for retaining a uniform price across Canada, will the minister indicate what plans the federal government has in mind to look after this matter?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I have examined the legislation and I think there is a way whereby the compensation payments can continue to be paid through another device, and arrangements are being made to do just that within my department. As to the question of whether the government will bring back the bill for further consideration, that is to say, reactivate it, I think the government will very likely let the ESAB organization lapse on June 30.
Oral Questions


Harvie Andre: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister give this House, or possibly the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, an opportunity to examine this new proposal for paying the subsidy, so that there may be some open discussion and examination of what the government has in mind? Possibly the minister could consider asking the committee to consider this matter.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think there will be plenty of opportunity for this when the main estimates come forward.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, may I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister or to the Minister of Agriculture? Has the government reviewed the offer concerning the $1 million DREE grant for the building of a milk and whey processing plant at Selkirk, Manitoba, for Crocus Foods, and considered whether the offer should be withdrawn in view of statements made by the Minister of Agriculture that milk producers in Canada must reduce production in view of present surpluses. If that review has not taken place, will the government give a commitment to review this offer, and not force Manitoba milk producers to pay for a plant of which they are not in favour? Nor have they had the opportunity to voice an opinion as to whether they are in favour of the plant.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the hon. member knows, this matter comes under another minister's department. We do review these matters together and we are concerned about overbuilding and overcapitalizing in this area. If there are too many facilities, it is a waste of money, and we want to make sure that does not happen, as I am sure the hon. member does. We want to be certain that the facilities we have in this country can be improved. We feel that there ought to be in Canada more facilities for the manufacture of certain types of specialty cheeses.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: It is not a cheese plant, Eugene.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the crisis proportions of unemployment in the Cape Breton industrial area, and since a second emergency meeting to deal with the crisis is to be held on February 9, will the minister advise the House if he has received any request from other federal government
21130-42*/2
January 30, 1976

tiated a sound assessment of the development capital Canada will need in the next five years as well as the manner in which Canada proposes to raise it-where and how?
[DOT] (U50)


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, I did not see the particular comment, but I suppose the best comment on the comment is that Canadian governments and Canadian corporations have enjoyed record success in raising funds on the Wall Street market and that, indeed, the current strong position of the Canadian dollar is related to the strength of Canadian issues in that market. So much for the Wall Street commentary quoted by the hon. gentleman. We have indeed been carrying out assessments of the additional capital needs which are likely to arise in the next five to ten years, as well as the sources of capital likely to be available. In my former capacity as minister of energy, mines and resources I had an opportunity of putting these on the record in considerable detail.


Mr. Crouse:: My supplementary is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In the light of the fact that deteriorating U.S.-Canadian relations is resulting in higher interest charges on loans made in the United States by provincial governments, is it the minister's intention to meet with his counterpart in the United States in the near future in order to alleviate the fears of our most important trading partner concerning the direction being taken toward socialism by this government?
Oral Questions
departments or from the government of Nova Scotia to undertake special public works in this area?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Mackenzie.


Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not hear my question.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: He was not
listening.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Is it still possible for cattlemen who sold steers and heifers between August 12, 1974 and August 11, 1975, to apply for the 48 cent per hundredweight assistance even at this late date; and, is there a cut-off date for such applications?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I think it is still possible. We are concerned, as an awful lot of these people have not applied who should have applied. We know they are entitled to it; I think they can still get it. I mailed applications directly to farmers just yesterday.


Stanley James Korchinski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the cattlemen's response to this program was very light, is it possible that the program was not adequately advertised? Is it intended to advertise the program, or, did cattlemen consider the program to be so niggardly that it was not considered it would help if it were advertised?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the reason could also be this: many farmers, if they had applied, might have been put in a higher income tax bracket. The program was advertised. Every provincial department of agriculture and every departmental office carried the forms. We publicized the program in a newsletter, but were criticized for carrying it in a newsletter. In what other way could the cattlemen be informed? I suppose the hon. member's constituency office could do a better job than it has been doing. Maybe the hon. member should return to his constituency every now and again.


FINANCE
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Finance concerns a comment by leading Wall Street financiers to the effect that Canada is its own worst enemy and Canadians cannot expect their Prime Minister to promote socialism while expecting lenders in the United States to lend Canadians money at low interest rates. My question is this: has the minister ini-


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. It concerns housing for the 15,000 non-delegates who are expected to visit the United Nations Habitat Conference in Vancouver next May and June. In view of the fact that the federally-appointed Associate Commissioner General for Habitat said that it is the city's responsibility to find housing for the unofficial visitors, and in view of the fact that the Mayor of Vancouver has said it was quite clear from the beginning that the federal government is the host, I should like to ask the minister who is the host of this international conference and what steps does the federal government plan to take to avert a situation which would be a blot upon the conference, upon Canada and upon the city of Vancouver?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: I am delighted that the hon. member has indicated to me how many non-governmental people will be there. This is the first hard figure we have had as to their number and it may help us to plan a little better. Adequate plans are made for the people who will be coming to Vancouver, more advanced arrangements, perhaps, than have ever been made for a conference of this type in any other city in the world. Canada is certainly the host country. I am sure
January 30, 1976

the people of Vancouver will be wonderful hosts to the conference and the people I have met from all parts of the world are very interested in visiting that city. I hope hospitality will be expressed by everybody in Vancouver.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: I should just like to say that the 15,000 figure was attributed to the federal government's Director-General, Mr. Keenleyside.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: May I ask what steps the federal government is planning to take in order to avert a problem which is clearly developing in this area?


Barnett Jerome Danson: We have a secretariat in Vancouver and, of course, in Ottawa, but mostly in Vancouver, working very closely with all officials there to make certain there is adequate accommodation and back-up because it is quite uncertain how many people will be there precisely-it could be 15,000, it could be 5,000. But we want to work closely with the City Council of Vancouver and discuss these arrangements with the Council so that we do have the necessary back-up and so that confusion may be avoided.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: A question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, Mr. Speaker. As the minister has accused business and labour leaders of reacting to the debate initiated by the Prime Minister on the free enterprise system in a manner which he described as "an empty polemic", may I ask the hon. gentleman how he expects labour and business to respond?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the hon. member said, it has never been a matter of debate on free enterprise. That is precisely why it was qualified of empty polemic and slogans. I therefore refer the hon. member to the text of my speech; he will then see exactly what I said.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs? It is prompted by the fact that at this moment there is a meeting taking place in the United States between a delegation from this Parliament and members of the U.S. Congress and that one of the subjects being discussed is the 200-mile limit. In view of the passage through the United States Senate this week of legislation declaring the intention of the United States to impose a 200-mile limit, making it, now, a resolution of both houses
Oral Questions
of the U.S. Legislature, may I ask the minister whether he intends to present a similar resolution to this House before the opening of the Law of the Sea Conference in New York, a move which would considerably strengthen the hand of the Canadian delegation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am following developments in the United States. As I understand it, the effective date of enforcement proposed in the U.S. legislation is the middle of 1977. Yet to be clarified is what happens when the joint effort is made between the Congress and the Senate to reconcile their legislative efforts. As far as Canada is concerned, we are not obliged to enact legislation in order to give effect to a 200-mile limit, as is the United States, because under present legislation all that is required is notice of 60 days to give effect to such a proposal. There is certainly a question mark in my mind as to whether there would be any advantage to Canada in moving at this point in the light of the projected date of effective enforcement of a 200-mile limit by the United States, the middle of 1977. I can assure the hon. member, however, that Canada, while it prefers the negotiative route, would act at any time in order to protect Canadian national interests.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour? A very long time ago the minister said he hoped to table soon the report of Dr. Noel Hall, the Commissioner appointed to inquire into all aspects of railway pensions. The last time the hon. gentleman made a prediction he said it would be tabled before the end of January. Would the minister now tell the House when we can expect this report?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: As the hon. member knows, concern with regard to the availability of this report has been communicated to Dr. Hall. He is fully aware of the circumstances and I am satisfied he is doing his best to get it in as soon as possible. I cannot give the hon. member a precise date but as soon as I can I will inform the House.


NATIONAL CAPITAL
Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, a while ago the right hon. member for Prince Albert asked some questions and I thought that before the end of the question period I might throw some light on the subject he raised. I am advised that the Deputy Attorney General some time ago gave a legal opinion to the former chairman of the National Capital Commission, Mr. Douglas Fuller-

January 30, 1976
Oral Questions
ton, for the purpose of the study Mr. Fullerton was conducting at the request of the government, a study which is the subject matter of a discussion before a committee of this House. It is clear that the capital can be named by the Queen of Canada pursuant to the BNA Act. This, I suspect, is something to which the right hon. gentleman is not adverse.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not to be.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The national capital region was established, of course pursuant to the National Capital Commission Act which was written and passed by parliament during the term of government of the right hon. gentleman.


John George Diefenbaker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the observations made by the Minister of Justice indicate his entire disregard for the facts. I ask him to produce the letter that was written to the Clerk of the Privy Council by the deputy minister of justice in which, as I recall it, he was asked to give his views as to whether a change in the capital's name of Ottawa can be brought about in a nonstatutory manner. If he will produce that letter, the cat will be out of the bag.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, on a different point of order, in view of this little departure, and without any attempt, I assure Your Honour, to indicate to you how you should conduct the House, I know that the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys had an important supplementary and I wonder whether the House would agree to his putting that supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Part of the discretion I exercised with respect to the supplementary question of the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys had to do with the fact that he had the opportunity, and took advantage of it, at an earlier time this week to put a similar question. It is a matter of great concern to him and his constituency, but I know that the same or a similar question was put by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.
It is possible that the Minister of Public Works, to whom the question was put, did not hear the question but I had no indication to that effect and was not able to allow either member, I thought in some order of consistency with previous rulings that I had made on supplementary questions, to pursue the matter further, since the answer given by the minister was that he would look into it and he had given that same answer earlier. I thought that it was a proper and consistent exercise of discretion to stop the matter there. However, if the minister has anything to add for either member at this point, perhaps he may have the opportunity to do so.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I should like an explanation of why members of parliament do not have equal rights in this House. I have been a member here for 18 years. At no time, if Your Honour will check the record, have I ever abused the rules. I believe we all got here in the same way, even you, Mr. Speaker.
The question I wanted to raise was so important that the Premier of the province of Nova Scotia, at the request of

the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, convened a meeting in Sydney at which all parties were represented. The question that I raised today was not the same question that I raised earlier this week; it concerned another project altogether. Out of that meeting came ideas to try to get the federal government, the provincial government and Crown agencies to provide some type of employment in the area, even if only short-term, in view of the very serious situation.
Frankly, sir, with all due deference, I feel I have been discriminated against. If Your Honour checks the record you will find that rarely do I get an opportunity to be heard: once last week, once this week. I ask you to check the record going back a number of months. I have records indicating that I have risen 20, 25, 27 times, with no recognition. I wanted to raise a supplementary question, but no, I could not do so. Other hon. members get one, two, three supplementary questions. I just want an explanation as to why the discrimination against me and against Cape Breton, against my constituency and people.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Muir: I am being very frank, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members across the way can try to howl me down, as they do all the time. All I want is a little fairness. I think the question is so important that we should have some little opportunity to speak on behalf of our constituents. Please check the record and you will find that there are those who ask two, three and four questions in a week, while other members have difficulty asking one. It may be fair, I do not know, but I think we all got here the same way.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member raises a question of privilege in regard to his particular treatment at the hands of the Chair. I regret that he is evidently dissatisfied with it. He refers to having had an opportunity to ask a question last week. I would remind him that, obviously, that must have been an earlier opportunity this week, since the House only began to sit this week.


Robert Muir: This week.


Mr. Speaker:: That being the case, I think I was correct. I have checked my own records, and the hon. member has had two opportunities. Today I tried to make sure that every member of the opposition who had attempted to be recognized during the question period this week had an opportunity, and I think I accomplished that, probably to the detriment of some members, individually, to have an opportunity to ask a supplementary question.
The hon. member put a question to the minister and his answer was, as has been the case with many ministers on previous occasions, that he would look into the matter. The language used by the hon. member today was to ask for some short-term relief from the Minister of Public Works for the very severe unemployment situation that exists in the hon. member's constituency. The language was identical to the language that he used on Wednesday. The question may have been about a different project, but I hope he will understand that it is extremely difficult for the Chair, on hearing such identical language, to separate the two projects. Neither is there any way that I am able to conclude that there have been meetings about the matter, that
January 30, 1976

the situation has been so severe, because there is no indication given in the question as to whether that kind of urgent matter has been the subject of a meeting with the provincial premier. There simply is no way the Chair can determine that.
In an attempt to be consistent, where ministers indicate that they will look into a matter and come back with a further answer, generally speaking I have not permitted a supplementary, because when the minister does come in with further information it is always the desire of the questioning member then to pursue the matter with sup-plementaries and run it to the ground. That is the practice that I have followed in the past and I was only being consistent, I thought, with the hon. member. I regret, as well, that the question, despite its importance to the area of Cape Breton, was not followed up or pursued; but, again, the Chair could have no control over that.
It is, of course, always a fact of life in this chamber that individual members get different treatment on different days. The Chair has to decide instantly whether a question should be followed by a supplementary or whether, in the interests of other members trying to get the floor, other people should be recognized and, again depending on their questions, whether there should be one supplementary or no supplementary. That is a fact of life with which we all have to live. Sometimes it makes people happy, sometimes it does not; but in every case the Chair has to do the best it can under the circumstances.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I seek the floor on a point of order that may well develop into, and may well be a question of privilege affecting Your Honour's privileges, and, through you, Mr. Speaker, the privileges of all members of the House. My point of order arises because of statements made last evening, during the adjournment proceedings, by the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley. In his statements, the hon. member imputed motives relating to the exercise of Your Honour's functions and duties in this House. I am now advised that the hon. member is not present today; I would, therefore, seek Your Honour's permission to raise this particular point again on Monday, in order to permit the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley to be present when I again raise it.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the parliamentary secretary would not want to appear to be putting himself in the position of being the judge, either of the remarks or of the intentions of the hon. member. However, I think the parliamentary secretary's point is well taken. I would ask Your Honour to hold this matter over until the first opportunity when the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley is in the House.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have heard the hon. member's point of order and it is perhaps an important one. The hon. member who has just raised a question of privilege concerning the problems in Cape Breton will at once realize that at least there has been some consistency, in that yesterday the hon. member just referred to was complaining rather bitterly that he was unable to ask a supplementary to a question on amateur sport. The hon. member has referred to the fact that some reference was made to the
Oral Questions
Chair in the adjournment debate last evening, and I would just as soon leave the matter over until the hon. member has had an opportunity of explaining his remarks.


Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With due deference to your office, I wish to state that there was a difference of kind, as well as degree, in the question I directed to the Minister of Public Works, from the one asked by the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys. I think the minister was temporarily sleeping. As a clergyman, I am used to putting people to sleep with sermons, but never with questions.
In view of the crisis situation with regard to unemployment in the Cape Breton industrial area, and as a second emergency meeting to deal with the crisis will be held on February 9-and this is terribly important to those who are suffering from unemployment-will the minister advise if he has had any requests from other federal government departments or the provincial government of Nova Scotia to produce some special public works for that area? That is a simple question.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Public Works, on a point of order.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I thought I was answering the question.


Mr. Speaker:: We have been over this ground several times. There is some pressing urgency to this matter. I do not like to take a strong technical stand in the face of questions that have some substance. The fact is that the question period is long over. If the minister is to now give a reply, it has to be by way of a point of order.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I confess that I did not hear the question. The reason for not answering was not that I did not want to, but merely because I did not hear it. Having now heard it, I will be glad to make inquiries.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I had hoped the passage of time would have eliminated my point of order. It arises from a question I put to the Postmaster General on Tuesday of this week. The minister replied as reported at page 10348 of Hansard. I quote a few words from his answer:
-but I will get more detailed information for the hon. member before tomorrow.
I recognize that the Postmaster General has not been in the House since Tuesday, but I have been around and available to receive this more detailed information. Members on this side are probably resigned to not receiving proper answers from time to time. However, when detailed information is promised by a certain date and is not forthcoming by that date, it most certainly interferes with the function of the official opposition and members on this side of the House. That is the point of order I would raise. I protest most strongly to the Acting Prime Minister for allowing this sort of treatment by his cabinet.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

January 30,1976
Oral Questions


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It relates to the matter raised by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. The reason for my raising this matter is well known by the President of the Treasury Board; in fact, he introduced it.
There was a reference by this House, and a reference by the Senate, with regard to the whole question of the national capital. In view of that reference, the fact that the matter is before a committee of this House, and in view of the opinion sought in the question and in the motion under Standing Order 43, I believe that this House and the committee are entitled to an explanation by the President of the Treasury Board with regard to the policy and the government's dealing with the name of the national capital.
On this very fundamental and important matter, does the government, as a matter of policy, intend to follow the example of the Finkelman committee with respect to Bill C-52 and make a statement as to the government's intentions with regard to the national capital? More than that, the government House leader owes this House an explanation as to whether it is the policy of the government to permit this important matter to be determined by order in council rather than by action of this House, or perhaps both Houses of Parliament.
I believe this is a valid point of order. It relates to how the government intends to carry out its function with regard to the very important joint committee on the national capital.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will have an opportunity before the committee to raise these questions. The government will be happy to co-operate in whatever way may be useful. The question was directed to me by the right hon. member for Prince Albert and I said I would inquire into the circumstances under which the opinion was sought. The Minister of Justice has added to the explanation. However, I would think that the committee would be the best place to pursue this matter.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. The hon. member's question was really dealt with in my opening statement to that committee when we spoke of the national capital region and the seat of government. As a matter of fact, I spent some time asking for responses from the committee on this whole question which is an exercise in semantics in many cases. We would welcome the opportunity to have this matter discussed by the committee, and the views of parliament presented to the government in the report.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table a report of the Anti-Inflation Board on the reference of the Irving Paper matter from the board to the administrator under the Anti-Inflation Act.


PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41 (2), I wish to table, in both official languages, the report on the study of the accounts of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The Secretary of State for External Affairs has given an indication of his intention to make a statement today. I wonder if hon. members would agree that we ought to finalize the rest of routine proceedings before calling on the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-425, respecting the cancellation of credit card purchases.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, this bill will make it possible for dissatisfied consumers to take action against the issuer of a credit card for the recovery of money paid to a supplier for goods or services which are unsatisfactory and which have been paid for by credit card. The act would apply in respect of credit cards issued by federally-incorporated companies and banks for amounts over $50.


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

Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That the document entitled "Report on the study of
January 30, 1976

the accounts of Canada" be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, we welcome the long-awaited study of the accounts of Canada tabled by the President of the Treasury Board. It was in May, 1973, that the Treasury Board secretariat first announced its intention to critically examine the concepts underlying the financial information system of the government through an interdepartmental steering committee. For many years the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, and the Auditor General, in their respective reports have questioned certain financial practices as being inconsistent with the stated principles on which the government's accounts are kept.
It is refreshing, therefore, to see the initiative taken by Treasury Board, in response to the committee and the Auditor General, to examine "the purposes, principles and practices which should govern the form of the accounts of Canada" and to present constructive proposals for parliament's consideration so that the accounts of Canada reflect a fair, complete and accurate record of the Government of Canada's finances. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, as parliamentarians and as users of the accounts of Canada, we welcome this report if the proposals presented help us in our daily task to examine more meaningfully government expenditures and, indeed, help us to strengthen parliament's control over the public purse.
We welcome the referral of this study to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and will be pleased to report back to this House in due course on our deliberations.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We agree to this motion, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,564, 3,649, 3,715, 3,776, 3,868 and 3,900.
Order Paper Questions
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	Since 1968 (a) how much "Contract Work" in dollar terms was assigned by CIDA to Canadian universities (b) to which universities (c) how much to each on a year by year basis?
2.	Did the contract include travel costs or were there separate claims and, if the latter, how much was claimed by each university on a year by year basis and on a project by project basis?


Miss Monique Begin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. The figures on contract work in dollar terms assigned by CIDA to Canadian universities for the years 1968 to 1973 are unavailable. The figures for the years 1974-75 and 1975-76 are as follows:
Canadian Universities	Contract Work Assigned
	1974-75	1975-76
Alberta		13,000.00
Algonquin College	32,400.00	2,400.00
British Columbia		380,000.00
Guelph		158,000.00
Guelph	1,000,000.00	
Guelph	60,000.00	
Guelph		10,000.00
Guelph	445,000.00	
Laval		2,025,000.00
Laval		15,000.00
Laval	75,000.00	
Laval	25,000.00	
McGill		25,000.00
McGill		20,000.00
McGill	2,500,000.00	
Montreal	2,200,000.00	
Montreal		143,400.00
New Brunswick		4,500,000.00
Ottawa		21,780,00
Ottawa	1,350,000.00	
Ottawa		125,000.00
Regina	50,000.00	
Ryerson Polytechnical Institute	100,000.00	60,000.00
Sherbrooke	13,600.00	
Toronto	325,600.00	
UQUAM	1,705,000.00	
Waterloo	2,800,000.00	
Windsor		200,000.00
York	1,500,000.00	
2. The information requested is unavailable.


Mr. Herbert: What contribution has been made by CIDA in each of the past five years to projects (a) in Cuba (b) having an impact on trade with Cuba?


Monique Bégin: In so far as the
Canadian International Development Agency is concerned, the reply is as follows: (a) 1971-72, $.00; 1972-73, $5,400.00; 1973-74, $427,100.00; 1974-75, $451,800.00; 1975-76, $264,500.00 (as of December 31, 1975). (b) Our program of cooperation with Cuba includes several fields such as agriculture, cattle raising, health and medical equipment, electronics,

January 30, 1976
Order Paper Questions
engineering management training, pulp and paper industry, citrus fruit production and fishing. The activity of CIDA in all these sectors is often complementary to commercial activities between Canada and Cuba. In particular, CIDA is in the process of conducting a large training program for Cuban students in Canada which will not only contribute to their own advancement but also enable them to better understand the opportunities in the Canadian market and initiate them to the technology used in our country. However, CIDA does not undertake formal evaluations of the impact of these projects on commerce between Canada and Cuba.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,998, was the EDP Policy Project Report, dated November 30, 1971 on Electronic Data Processing in the government approved by the Treasury Board's Secretariat?
2.	What is the number of (a) departments operating computers (b) departmental computer centres?
3.	What is the total number of EDP personnel in the government?
4.	What is the direct cost of the EDP Programme?
5.	For the year 1971-72, what was the overall total of EDP expenditures?
6.	For the year 1975-76, what is the estimated overall cost of EDP expenditures?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1.
The EDP Policy Project Report, November 30, 1971, was prepared by the Treasury Board Secretariat and approved by the Treasury Board.
2.	(a) Eighteen departments operate computers in 197576. (b) Of the number in (a) there are nine designated departmental computer centres.
3.	The number of directly-related EDP personnel in the government for 1975-76 is estimated at 7,900: -425 managerial; 2,353 systems and programming; 2,445 data conversion; 1,242 data production; 1,435 others.
4.	*The direct cost of departmental EDP activities for 1974-75 was $162,567,000.
5.	*The direct cost of EDP expenditures for 1971-72 was $83,060,000.
6.	*The direct cots of EDP expenditures for 1975-76 is estimated at $193 million.
*Direct EDP cost includes only the salaries of EDP staff, the cost of EDP equipment and supplies, and the direct purchase cost of EDP services obtained from non-government sources.


Mr. Cossitt: On how many occasions has the Chateau Montebello been used by the government for total immersion French language sessions and, in each case (a) what were the dates and length of time (b) how many persons were involved (c) what was the total cost by (i) day (ii) entire session?


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: The Public Service Commission sent me the following information:

Course: French Immersion
Chateau Montebello
Number of Number of Cost per day Cost per ses-
Date 1975	days	students	per group	sion per groupApril 21 to 24 November 12	3	7	140.00	420.00*to 14 December 8 to	3	7	337.96	1,013.8811	3	15	728.85	2,186.55
* The teaching unit paid $140 a day. It was agreed (and accepted by the seven students concerned) that costs exceeding this minimum would be paid by the students themselves. Following the recent federal government statements on austerity measures, the Public Service Commission has revised its guidelines on student excursions, and the use of first-class hotels is no longer permitted.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	Did the Treasury Board approve the expenditure of funds in conjunction with Canadian involvement in the Rose Bowl Parade in Pasadena, California, January 1, 1976 and, if so (a) in what amount (b) on what date (c) for what purpose?
2.	Which departments requested such funds from the Treasury Board?
3.	Was the amount approved (a) greater (b) smaller than the amount originally requested and, if so, by what amount?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Yes. (a) $183,000 (b) May 1, 1975 (c) Canadian participation in a ten-day program in Southern California, commencing January 1, 1976, including participation in the Pasadena Tournament of Roses Parade, The Rose Bowl Pre-game Show, and the Disneyland Bicentennial Parade. This amount covers transportation, accommodation and living expenses for the RCMP Musical Ride, the allCanadian Pipe Band, and a combination Brass Band from the R22*R and PPCLI.
2.	External Affairs requested this as incremental funding from Treasury Board as part of the Canadian participation in the commemorations of the U.S.A. Bicentennial.
3.	The inner workings of cabinet and cabinet committees are traditionally considered confidential matters.


Mr. Cossitt: 1. Did the Prime Minister use government aircraft for his holiday trip to Western Canada at the end of December, 1975 and, if so (a) which aircraft (b) what was the cost per hour of maintaining such aircraft in the air (c) how many hours of flying time were involved (d) what was the cost per hour of waiting time on the ground (e) how many hours were involved (f) what are the details of all flights made by such aircraft during the holiday trip including (i) places and times of departures (ii) places and times of arrivals (iii) names of persons on board at any time during the interval?
January 30, 1976

2. Was the aircraft kept waiting anywhere during the time the Prime Minister spent in Western Canada and, if so, what was the cost for keeping the crew on standby including salaries, accommodation and other expenses?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. No.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. Speaker:: In conformity with previous arrangements, the House will now revert to the tabling of documents and statements by ministers in order to permit the tabling of documents and a statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that nuclear co-operation agreements have been signed with the governments of the Republic of Korea and the Republic or Argentina. I am tabling copies of the texts of these agreements. I should also like to table the background paper on nuclear safeguards and Canadian safeguards policy which may be of interest to hon. members, and also extracts from a document published by the International Atomic Energy Agency which outlines the safeguards procedures and inspection systems in place by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The agreement with the Republic of Korea was signed, as I mentioned yesterday, at Seoul on January 26. I will allow the sale to the Republic of Korea of a CANDU power reactor produced by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to go forward. The attendant commercial and financial arrangements have already been concluded. The Republic of Korea, as hon. members are aware, is a developing country which is in the process of significant industrialization.
The economy of the Republic of Korea is basically sound. Its pattern of growth has been remarkable in recent years, but it has large power requirements over the coming periods which its indigenous fuel resources are not in a position to satisfy. As part of its efforts to generate sufficient energy for its programs of industrialization and development, the Republic of Korea has established a significant program of nuclear power generation. The acquisition of a CANDU power reactor is intended to supplement the country's nuclear power generation program. The Republic of Korea is already building a power reactor supplied from the United States and is contracting for one additional unit from that source.
The agreement with Argentina was signed in Buenos Aires today. It covers the sale of a CANDU reactor to the Argentine Republic and attendant technical co-operation pursuant to contracts which were concluded in 1974. Worldwide inflation since that time has created difficulties and the commercial terms of those latter contracts are currently being renegotiated.
Nuclear Co-operation Agreements
Argentina is an important Latin-American country which has had harmonious relations with its neighbours for over 100 years. It is a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency. It has had a successful nuclear development program for over 25 years and operates a number of reserach reactors as well as a heavy water moderated power reactor built with the co-operation of the Federal Republic of Germany.
The co-operation to be undertaken under these two agreements reflects the position announced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in 1975 when he noted that Canada would continue to seek to make available to developing countries the benefits of the peaceful applications of nuclear energy, provided that adequate guarantees against the possible diversion of such co-operation to non-peaceful, explosive purposes were available. This is a position endorsed by other nuclear suppliers.
These agreements provide that identified nuclear exports, including nuclear technology in physical form, shall only be authorized on the basis of coverage by an intergovernmental guarantee: First, that the items supplied or items produced with these, including subsequent generations, will not be diverted to any non-peaceful or explosive purpose; second, that these guarantees are verified through inspection mechanisms of the International Atomic Energy Agency; third, that the retransfer of items supplied and items produced with these including subsequent generations of nuclear material only be done with the consent of the Government of Canada; fourth, that the enrichment and reprocessing of nuclear material supplied, or nuclear material produced with times supplied, only be done with the consent of the government of Canada; fifth, that IAEA safeguards and other mechanisms of bilateral verification for aspects of guarantees, where the IAEA system is not applicable, be in place for the life of the supplied item or for items susceptible to these guarantees produced from these items; and sixth, that adequate measures for the physical security of materials be in place to protect the supplied items from the threat of subnational diversion.
The safeguards commitments, including the application of the International Atomic Energy Agency inspection system, undertaken by the Republic of Korea and the Republic of Argentina represent juridical assurances of a high order which fully meet international standards and Canadian safeguards policy.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the question is whether these agreements for the sale of nuclear reactors and arrangements regarding nuclear co-operation are adequate. Our experience with India has shown the danger that technology can be used to develop techniques for the making of nuclear explosions or which have the potential at least for atomic or nuclear bombs. In view of the Indian experience, we in Canada, and the Government of Canada, have a special responsibility regarding the sale of nuclear reactors. I recognize the potential for contradiction inherent in the concept of nonproliferation, that is, that everybody will agree not to proliferate the use of nuclear bombs, and this sort of thing, and that in compensation the benefits of nuclear knowledge will be shared generally. I recognize the potential

January 30, 1976
Nuclear Co-operation Agreements
contradiction involved, therefore, in imposing severe limits upon the sale of nuclear reactors.
I recognize, also, the importance of sharing the benefits and the risks of a growing tendency to reject the concept of non-proliferation if countries without other sources of electricity and power are denied the benefits of this kind of reactor. But the risks of illicit proliferation such as, I am afraid, took place in India are so great, and the process of illicit proliferation constitutes such a menace to world peace, that I believe it is far better for us to take some time to get in place solid international safeguards for peace. Certainly, it is not good enough to claim that we are imposing the highest standard of safeguards in the world, if that should happen to be true, because the question with regard to either or both of these sales is: Does this sale by us constitute a serious risk in the total context, which includes what other countries are now doing or may be doing with the regard to the sale of plutonium recycling plants, for example? We must look at the total context.
It is said that France is prepared to sell a plutonium recycling plant. The minister made no reference to this in his statement about Korea, nor in connection with the Argentinian situation did he make any reference to the report that West Germany is prepared to make a very large package deal with Brazil. The assumption among many people is that this may lead to nuclear rivalry between Brazil and Argentina. This is part of the context in which Canada is entering into these agreements with Korea and Argentina.
There is only one reason why today a country like Korea, or any modest country, would want a recycling plant, and that is to develop fissionable material suitable for the development of bombs-because it is not economical in terms of the development of electrical power. So we can talk about our humanitarian desires, our desire to help Korea in peaceful development, and the same with Argentina, but is this so much our motivation in making these sales as our desire to make the sales?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is important that we have very strict agreements and a very strict understanding among all countries which are capable of exporting reactors or nuclear technology. I hope Canada and the other countries involved, of which there are only a relatively small number, develop such a strict agreement. It is now reported that some kind of agreement will be reached but it will be far from strict. I believe Canada should have been prepared to wait and to ask for a general moratorium, to set an example by demanding adequate safeguards to be provided by all the countries capable of exporting reactors or nuclear technology. I suggest this particularly in view of the unstable situation that exists in the part of Asia where Korea is located, and certainly the unstable conditions that exist within Argentina.
When you look at these agreements and safeguards that are negotiated, what do you find? I have not had an opportunity to examine them fully, because the minister sent us copies of these agreements only today at 10.30 a.m. I know he has a very high view of my intelligence, but my

intelligence is not such as to allow me to analyse these complicated documents within that period of time. But it is a matter of such importance that I would suggest to the hon. gentleman, old parliamentarian that he is, that even from his government vantage point he could not regard this as a satisfactory method of discussing an arrangement of such vital importance to the world.
In the United States the government has to go to Congress before a deal is completed so that Congress has an opportunity to raise objections. That is the minimum which this government should be prepared to provide for this parliament. The way we are now proceeding is most unsatisfactory. In matters relating to something as basically important to this country and to the world as the sale of a nuclear reactor and the possible consequences of that sale, this government should be prepared to table in the House the agreement it proposes to make and give parliament a reasonable opportunity to study the proposals and to raise objections, at the very least.
Much of the technology that has been made available to Korea and to Argentina can be applied to non-peaceful purposes. We have no assurances and no indications that the sanctions will be adequate. What could Canada do if Argentina or Korea failed to live up to these obligations? The minister said there would be inspections under international arrangements. I have no reason to believe, from anything I knew before or from anything the minister has said today, that the quality and degree of inspection that can be provided by an international agency is at all adequate to prevent unfortunate consequences from developing. Certainly, the minister could not give us any assurances today. I have no reason to believe that international inspection arrangements are adequate today, or that the international agents will in fact be in a position to inspect all the aspects that are necessary.
I do not want to take too much time, but I do not apologize for the time I am taking because these matters are very important. I say that Canada's inspection and control in these two situations seems to be very limited. I say that the context as a whole is dangerous. I say that our government should be prepared to wait and to push for really adequate international arrangements before rushing into these sales. Also, I say it is unfortunate that so many exporting countries which have the technology are taking a commercial approach to the sale of nuclear reactors and nuclear technology. I am sorry to see my own country seeming to give such weight to the commercial aspects of these arrangements.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not ask the minister what the terms of the deal are with regard to financing and this sort of thing. It is too late to stop this. But I hope the government will give us an undertaking that there will be no further completed transactions of this sort until such transaction is tabled in the House, as is the case in our neighbouring country. I ask that we not be presented with a fait accompli; that we be given an opportunity to study what is being proposed-and, who knows, we might even be able to bring something to the attention of this government which could be useful to it.
January 30, 1976


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, many thousands of Canadians will be saddened today by the announcement the minister has just made, especially coming from a minister for whom many Canadians have deep respect. When he was appointed to this high office many of us hoped he would pursue a foreign policy for Canada which would not be dominated by commercial considerations. The minister said in the statement he made a few moments ago that the signing of these agreements with Argentina and South Korea was in line with the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in 1975, to the effect that Canada would continue to make available to developing countries the benefits of nuclear energy, provided there were adequate guarantees against the possible diversion of such facilities to nonpeaceful or explosive purposes.
Therefore, the whole question arises as to whether it is possible to have adequate guarantees and adequate safeguards. Just a few days ago an American nuclear scientist visiting Canada said there can be no adequate safeguards and that the only wise course to follow is to reduce the sale of nuclear reactors wherever the political situation is unstable and unpredictable. Certainly, the two countries with whom the government has just signed an agreement would come into the class of being both unstable and unpredictable.
The minister is placing his entire faith in the periodic inspections which will be made by the International Atomic Energy Agency, commonly known as IAEA. This organization has neither the power of enforcement nor the adequately trained staff to ensure adequate safeguards. The last report shows that the IAEA has 135 employees of whom less than 70 are nuclear scientists. In 1974 there were 562 nuclear plants in 33 countries, in 1975 there were 650 nuclear plants in 38 countries, and it is anticipated the figure will be well over 1,000 by 1980. How do less than 70 nuclear scientists possibly hope to carry on adequate inspection services in a situation like that?
The IAEA is doing its best; there is no doubt about that. They recently reported, however, that only 95 per cent of the plutonium extracted from the radium waste of reactors could be accounted for with accuracy. They hope, they say, in a number of years to get this up to 99 per cent. That may sound very comforting to some people, but let us consider the situation. It is estimated that in 1975 there were 17,000 pounds of plutonium produced. Now, 5 per cent of that is 850 pounds, from which could be made 55 nuclear bombs. Even when we get to 99 per cent of a certainty with respect to accounting for plutonium, that still leaves 170 pounds, which is enough to make 10 or 11 nuclear bombs.
The danger is not just the possibility of a nuclear war. One of the real dangers is that terrorist groups may get their hands on quantities of plutonium. Neither South Korea nor Argentina, in my opinion, can be considered stable in the present world situation. No one who was at the discussion at the United Nations a few months ago when the whole question of North Korea and South Korea was before the United Nations General Assembly would think for a moment, with the gathering troop concentrations on the border, that the possibility of an outbreak of war is extremely remote. It certainly is not. There could be
Nuclear Co-operation Agreements war on that peninsula at almost any time. Argentina has had political instability for some time and there is a distinct possibility that the government there might be overthrown. What kind of government will take its place, a government for whom we have made it possible to produce plutonium and to make nuclear weapons?
The danger does not really lie in the nuclear reactor. The danger lies in the toxic waste from the reactor from which plutonium can be extracted. The only way to extract it is with an extraction plant or reprocessing plant, and both South Korea and Argentina have purchased reprocessing plants. It is significant that the United States and the United Kingdom have both refused to sell reprocessing plants to these countries, but they have been able to secure them from France.
When the minister was going to Korea some months ago, we asked him if he would ascertain from the President of South Korea why that country had obtained a reprocessing plant. When the minister came back he told us in the House that the President had assured him that the reprocessing plant was for scientific research. How naive can the minister be? The only possible purpose in having a reprocessing plant is to extract plutonium, and the only possible use for a toxic commodity like plutonium is to make bombs. Yet both of these countries have reprocessing plants, and we are selling them nuclear reactors. They already have other nuclear reactors but they are now going to get a CANDU reactor by virtue of this agreement.
I submit to the minister and to the House that there is a heavy burden upon the people of Canada with respect to what we are doing at this time. A little over 30 years ago, when the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, the world was shocked and conscience-stricken about the new and terrible powers which were placed in the hands of mankind. If at that time the nations of the world had been able to restrict the spread of nuclear weapons, we might be able to sleep more easily. Instead, the nuclear club has spread at an alarming rate. An anthropologist visiting Canada just a few days ago said that, considering the pollution of the air, water and earth, and considering the proliferation of nuclear weapons, he could not see the survival of the human race beyond the year 2000. The fact is that the world is living on the edge of Armageddon. It may be that the contribution we have made to that situation up until now has been done unknowingly, but the step now being taken by the government is being taken deliberately and the government has a very heavy burden on its conscience.
The Canadian people will have to ask themselves whether they want to continue contributing to the possibility of a nuclear holocaust. Certainly, future generations will hold those of us who sit in this parliament responsible if we are plunged into a nuclear war ourselves, or any part of the world in the years which lie ahead.
In closing, I want to renew the plea I made to the minister yesterday. I have not changed my mind as a result of hearing the statement of the minister today. I do not think it is enough for a crucial decision like this to be made by the government and then members of parliament to be given a five-minute statement by the minister, two or three minutes of reply from each of the political parties, and that is all.

January 30, 1976
Nuclear Co-operation Agreements


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I agree wholeheartedly with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), who says that an international agreement of this importance ought to be submitted to parliament before it is signed. I know that traditionally the executive has always taken the position that it has the right to sign any international agreement, and then parliament at some time or other can move a motion of no confidence; but I refer the hon. gentleman to one of the patron saints of the Liberal party, the Right Hon. Mackenzie King, who was prime minister of Canada, I think, longer than any other person in the history of this nation. On April 12, 1928, this is what he said in parliament:
I submit that the day has passed when any government or executive should feel that they should take it upon themselves without the approval of parliament, to commit a country to obligations involving any considerable financial outlays or active undertakings. In all cases where obligations of such a character are being assumed internationally, parliament itself should be assured of having the full right of approving what is done before binding commitments are made. I would not confine parliamentary approval only to those matters which involve military sanctions and the like. I feel parliamentary approval should apply where there are involved matters of large expenditure or political considerations of a far-reaching character.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the government that there can be no international commitment of more far-reaching character than the signing of these two agreements with South Korea and Argentina and selling them a CANDU reactor. Both nations have in their possession reprocessing plants from which they can extract plutonium. The minister shakes his head, but I would be glad to hear from him about that in the question period.
I submit since the government has already signed the agreements, the very least the minister can do is to say that he will introduce a motion in the House asking the House to approve these two agreements. Members of parliament would then have an opportunity to express their opinion on the matter, and the government would have some idea of public reaction and could govern itself accordingly in the future. I hope that if there are any other agreements of this character-I trust there will not be-the government will submit the matter to parliament prior to signing them.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, we have just heard the minister's statement on the two agreements signed with South Korea and Argentina concerning the sale of CANDU reactors. I am sure the minister was aware of the responsibilities he was taking in signing these agreements. I believe he has taken every precaution to make sure that these two countries merely want to take advantage of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
In his statement, the minister said that the Korean economy is basically sound and that its growth rate has been outstanding those last years. But its future needs for energy will be enormous and will not be satisfied by its own oil resources. We must always face facts. When a country which wants to develop itself and surge ahead has no other course than to ask for external aid, as Korea has asked Canada, I think it is reasonable to take all the

necessary precautions. A few moments ago I have heard the leader of the opposition say that the emphasis was on the commerical aspect. In my opinion, we are perhaps taking the commercial aspect into account, as in any market consideration, but I think we must not forget the social aspect. We must not consider only the matter of explosives.
A few moments ago, an NDP speaker was mentioning the atomic danger. But the danger represented by atomic bombs exists across this country, Mr. Speaker, since Canada is full of nuclear devices.
There is still about the fear of atomic bombs. All major countries have the atomic bomb. If some countries want to use that modern energy, that energy by excellence which is atomic energy for pacific purposes, provided all possible precautions are taken, I think Canada is welcome to help those countries. As long as they stay within the pacific action they want to implant in their countries, well, modern explosive means have to be used for pacific purposes if the necessary safeguards are there.
I think the minister took the necessary precautions. Accidents might happen. The minister himself might have surprises. But who says who is going to govern tomorrow? In any country, even Canada, who says who is going to govern us tomorrow? I would not wish that we be governed even by the NDP tomorrow. But one cannot judge the good intentions of this government on future assumptions. I simply say that precautions were taken.
It is good trade business, of course, let us not hide that fact; it is a good thing for Canada to be dealing with those countries at the trade level to open other doors for us. If it does not, other countries will, others are ready to do so. I noted earlier that the United States have already begun building a nuclear reactor bought in the United States for Korea. I think Canada is no worse than others as long as we stay within the bounds of pacifism simply to bring a country more in line with modern methods and it is beneficial at the same time for our country because of trade balances. I think we must not close the doors but extent our trade possibilities to other countries, contrary to the practice of past years where we always limited ourselves to dealing with two or three countries. We always had a trade deficit. Naturally, the subject is touchy; we are talking about atomic energy, but if that energy is used properly as set forth in the agreements now signed between the minister and the countries involved it will bring only positive results.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have arrived at a critical moment. It is difficult at this point for the Chair to assess whether it is more desirable, in the eyes of hon. members, to take a few minutes and conclude the questioning now. There has been no questioning at all, but if there are only two or three questions we could take the opportunity to hear them now. The subject is a serious one, however, and there has been some indication already of a desire to question the minister. It would seem, at first blush, that the matter ought to be given fuller treatment at two o'clock than in attempting to do it at this hour.
Accordingly, it being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
January 30, 1976



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. We shall now proceed to a question period in which hon. members will question the Secretary of State for External Affairs on his statement. Unfortunately, the minister is not here, which puts the House in a difficult position. If hon. members do not mind, we shall wait for a few minutes until the minister arrives.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: Here is the minister.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs relating to the assistance for Korea but not directly relating to the safeguards agreement? Can the minister inform the House, in general terms, of the financial arrangements for the transaction with Korea, approximately how much credit is being advanced by Canada to the Republic of Korea, the duration of the proposed loan and the rate of interest?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I shall do my best to supply some of the details asked for by the Leader of the Opposition with respect to the financing of the reactor for the Republic of Korea. The total cost of the reactor is approximately $500 million, and I understand that Canadian government financing is in the amount of $300 million. I have no details beyond that except that the amount is repayable in 30 semi-annual instalments commencing not later than six months after commissioning, or October, 1982, whichever comes first. Interest terms are not generally made public because of the effect such information might have on future negotiating positions in other transactions. That is all the information I have on the financing aspect of the Republic of Korea's undertaking.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, am I to understand from the Secretary of State for External Affairs that the people of this country will not be able to form an assessment of the prudence of the financial aspects of this deal because of some alleged effect upon our competitive position? What possible justification is there for refusing to disclose to members of this House the rate of interest so that the people of Canada can know to what extent, if any, they are subsidizing this transaction?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have given the justification for not disclosing the information. Frankly, I do not have the information at hand at the moment. I inquired about it, but the practice is not to reveal the terms of loans, for the reason given. I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition may follow the matter up with my colleague who is responsible, basically, for the financing aspects of the arrangement.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to accept the minister's suggestion and will do as he suggests, because I do not think secrecy would be acceptable either to parliament or to the people of Canada. Does the Secretary of State for External Affairs share my view that the situation-that is, the situation regarding the sale of nuclear reactors, nuclear technology and related matters-is going
Nuclear Co-operation Agreements from bad to worse in the sense that West Germany has offered a big package to Brazil, and France seems to be prepared to sell recycling plants for the recovery of plutonium to various countries?
If the minister shares my concern in this regard, why was the Government of Canada not prepared to wait a bit before completing this transaction so that it could bring all possible pressure to bear on the five or six other countries, including Britain, West Germany, France, the United States and one or two others, to agree mutually on practices and safeguards which would result in a reasonable sharing of the benefits of nuclear technology and, at the same time, safeguard the world from the danger of a nuclear holocaust?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I share the concern of the Leader of the Opposition and the concern expressed by others who spoke earlier today. I assure the hon. member that the question of non-proliferation was a dominant consideration in the negotiations preceding the signing of these agreements. Certainly, I paid dominant and paramount attention to the safeguards aspects of these agreements, in the interests of non-proliferation.
The Leader of the Opposition asked why we would not consider a moratorium. We concluded that it would not be useful if Canada withheld its sale of these reactors at this stage in the expectation that this would bring pressure to bear on other suppliers, as it would not be a good course of action. Probably it would result in Canada's losing sales to other nuclear suppliers, and we would also lose whatever influence we are exercising-and I believe it is considerable-with other suppliers in upgrading the general level of international safeguards. That is why we do not agree with his proposal for a moratorium. We believe it would not have any visible, obvious effect in this situation. It might even have a negative effect.
The Leader of the Opposition talked about reprocessing plants. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands spoke of both the Republic of Korea and the Republic of Argentina as being in possession of reprocessing plants. That is not true, and I am gratified to be able to tell the House that in the course of negotiations with the Republic of Korea the government of that country advised us it had cancelled its order for a reprocessing plant from France. So it has no way in which to complete the fuel cycle. Likewise, there is no reprocessing plant of military or commercial significance in existence in Argentina. There is, as I understand it, a small laboratory model of a reprocessing plant.
When the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands conjures up visions of all these pounds of plutonium, I can tell him they are not to be found either in the Republic of Korea or in Argentina. These large amounts are to be found in the industrialized countries of the world. I do not share his view, or that of other hon. members, that we ought to deny to the developing countries of the world an opportunity to share in this new technology.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

January 30,1976
Nuclear Co-operation Agreements


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think we ought to conduct a debate on the level of fact, and what I have just said represents the fact with respect to processing plants.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Before putting some questions to the minister, I wonder whether I might, for his own protection, draw attention to the text of his statement this morning? On page four, in the fourth line or so-he might check it in Hansard-he spoke of "co-operation for non-peaceful explosive purposes". I feel sure he must have meant "non-peaceful or explosive purposes".
As to the statement the minister has just made, let me say this: when I commented this morning to the effect that both Argentina and South Korea either possessed or were in the process of possessing reprocessing plants, I noticed that the minister was shaking his head. Now he tells us definitely that they do not have reprocessing plants. Well, Mr. Speaker, a report from London by Peter Calamai at the time of the International Energy Conference last summer definitely stated that the information coming out of that conference was to the effect that Argentina had obtained a reprocessing plant from France, and that South Korea was in the process of obtaining one, also from France. The minister says today that Korea has cancelled the order. May I ask him now whether there is any provision in the agreement that in the event of South Korea changing its mind and securing a reprocessing plant, the agreement will automatically be suspended?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not in the agreement. What is in the agreement-and it is a main provision-is that Canada is entitled to a hold on the reprocessing of any spent fuel, and we have indicated to the Republic of Korea that we would not at the present time be prepared to give consent for the reprocessing of any such spent fuel. Of course, that requirement within the agreement is to some extent inoperative because of the decision taken by Korea to cancel its order for a reprocessing plant from France. We think that is a positive element in the situation. I am satisfied, also, that the United States shares our view that nuclear technology ought to be made available to developing countries such as the Republic of Korea for peaceful purposes only, and I am satisfied that the United States will work diligently to secure that objective also.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do
not think the United States comes into the picture. The deal is between Canada and South Korea. The minister cannot give any assurance that South Korea, which was negotiating the purchase of a reprocessing plant, will not later obtain one. His answer, as I understand it, was that Canada would have control over any plutonium which may be produced from the waste material from the CANDU reactor. I should like to ask how that control will be exercised. Does Canada propose to repatriate the plutonium? In what way would control be exercised over the recycling of the waste?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. gentleman is right in stating we have not required that the spent fuel be returned to Canada. We did consider that course seriously, but we abandoned it for two reasons: first, because of the environ-

mental implications for Canada and, second, because it would not add significantly to the non-proliferation objective we were seeking. The inspection system to be carried out by the International Atomic Energy Agency is intended to detect the diversion of materials to non-agreed purposes. That is the purpose of the inspection system, one which relies on instrumentation as well as on personnel. That is the way we look after the point the hon. gentleman has raised.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In
view of the fact that IAEA itself does not undertake to account for anything beyond 95 per cent of the plutonium extracted, it seems to me that the minister is leaning upon a very slender reed. Mr. Speaker, I have one final question. The minister's statement today, together with the discussion that has taken place, seems to underline the need for a much wider discussion with respect to this important subject. Hon. members generally may be satisfied that the alleged safeguards will guarantee the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, but I am not satisfied that the two countries to whom we are selling these reactors constitute stable and reliable areas but, rather, are countries to which we ought not to be sending nuclear plants which ultimately could be used for the production of nuclear bombs.
Is the minister now prepared to consider the suggestion I made in the House yesterday, that he himself introduce a motion in the House in order for the House to have an opportunity to discuss this matter fully? I cannot believe that the government considers this matter of so little importance that the few moments we have had to discuss it today are sufficient for dealing with such a far-reaching subject that could have serious consequences not only for ourselves but the whole of mankind.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the importance that the hon. member attaches to this question, but I would remind him that we did discuss this question fully in parliament a few months ago, at which time the same arguments were put forward. We also had a very full discussion of the question in the standing committee on external affairs a month or so ago. The subject, in itself, has been very fully aired. However, I will consider the suggestion of the hon. member as to whether there is some way that further parliamentary examination could be made, not only of the agreements but also of the background material, which I think will prove useful for all of us in understanding the nature of the problem and what steps are being taken to apply safeguards. I will consider the hon. member's suggestion.


Mr. Wenman:: Mr. Speaker, was the question of the protection of the environment considered, and does this agreement cover the storage and disposal of nuclear waste materials from the environmental point of view, be it in Canada or in the countries gaining the nuclear reactors? Secondly, are these agreements similar to the agreement Canada is currently seeking with India subsequent to its nuclear explosion, in regard to Canadian aid to that country?
January 30, 1976


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the safety features of a nuclear reactor when it is in operation will, of course, be controlled by the host country and will be its responsibility. In Argentina, where already a power reactor supplied by Germany is in operation, and in Korea where one is under construction, supplied by the United States, the question of safety is basically a matter for their concern. To my knowledge, there is nothing in this agreement that would impose environmental regulations upon the recipient country. We are presently in negotiation with India in regard to safeguards for the uncompleted reactor there, but these negotiations have not yet been completed. Obviously, the negotiations are directed toward increasing the safeguards for that particular project.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary to each of my two questions? Is the minister saying that when Canada exports a reactor it feels no obligation in regard to the fact that the reactor will add to the world pollution problem? We share a responsibility for the disposal of nuclear waste from that reactor. At least we have a responsibility to see that it will be adequately handled. Does the minister know the method that will be used to handle this waste disposal, or is it to be handled by the country concerned? This is of major concern to the world. Just as we are calling for a moratorium on the profilera-tion aspects, there should be a similar moratorium regarding environmental control. Would the minister not agree with that statement?
My second supplementary question is this: Does the minister really expect any success with his negociations with India, in view of the fact that India has now started an external aid program greater than the $100 million with which we provide India by way of foreign aid? Bear in mind that $100 million is a small amount relative to a $2.5 billion expenditure. Is there any hope for the sanctions? This relates to the broader question of whether there is any real sanction at all, once we have allowed reactors to leave Canada, so far as controlling them is concerned. What sanctions are available other than foreign aid which has proven ineffective?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we have suspended our nuclear co-operation with India. That was a painful choice for Canada as well as for India. Because of our mutual desire to get out of the situation created by that painful cessation of nuclear co-operation we are now negotiating with India. Although we have not yet succeeded, we are still working on it. I have issued instructions to our negotiating team to resume negotiations in Indian in the month of February, and we will then know whether we will succeed. If we fail, the government will then be faced with a very serious situation. But I hope we will not fail.


Mr. Leggatt:: Mr. Speaker, would the minister advise the House whether there was an attempt in our negotiations with South Korea to put in the contract a force majeure provision so that, in the event that there was a violation of any of the commitments that have been given in these matters either by Argentina or South Korea, the Government of Canada would have the power, at least legally, to go into those countries and remove any of the fissionable material that may have been stored there, or remove any of the equipment that had been sold? Was there any attempt
Nuclear Co-operation Agreements to have such a clause provided in the contract and, if so, what was the the reaction of South Korea, and why did it not accept such provision?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is a provision in the contract or agreement-I would have to look at it again-providing for the return of any material, including the reactor, in the event of any violations. But there are practical obstacles in the way of the execution of such an agreement which would be even more difficult in the situation described by the hon. member.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: We should have something like a conditional sales agreement. There have been recent reports that nuclear exporting countries have been meeting in order to rationalize their sales procedure and introduce additional international standards regarding safeguards. In other words, there were reports, though not official, that Canada and other countries were participating with countries like France, West Germany, and so on, with regard to rationalizing the sales approach so that we do not have people bargaining off the safeguards in order to make a sale in the face of other competitors. Would the minister advise the House whether such meetings took place, and also whether any general agreement was arrived at in terms of international safeguard provisions governing sales by nuclear exporting countries to various purchasers?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there have been meetings among suppliers, including Canada, and one objective of this series of meetings was to upgrade the standard of safeguards among the supplying countries as one effective method of improving prospects for non-proliferation. We have put forward proposals at those meetings and I am certain we are in the vanguard of those who advocate improved and upgraded safeguards. Some progress has been made, and I hope that when the process is completed I will be able to report separately to the House on the results of these meetings of the nuclear suppliers. That is the primary way to achieve our objectives.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Can the minister advise why he did not consider delaying these sales until at least such time as those negotiations with other nuclear exporting countries were completed, on the simple basis that if the standards are higher than the ones we are now obtaining from Argentina and North Korea, we will have sold these nuclear reactors abroad at a lower standard than other nuclear exporting countries, therefore having a more immoral position, if I can put it that way, in terms of the way we flog these things abroad.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I do not fear that we will be placed in an immoral position as a result of any developments at a meeting of the nuclear suppliers. We have not declared the moratorium because we believe such a gesture would be futile and we would lose any influence we might have among the suppliers. In the meantime, the sales would be picked up by others and our position as a supplier in the way of influencing other suppliers would be, if not fatally damaged, at least seriously damaged.


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to quote just one sentence of a speech the Prime Minister made to the

January 30, 1976
Nuclear Co-operation Agreements annual meeting of the Canadian Nuclear Association on June 17, 1975, because, I think it is important in this examination. The Prime Minister said:
Nuclear activity is one of the many ways in which man is now engaged which, if not made susceptible to reason and discipline, could become ultra-hazardous, even cataclysmic.
The Prime Minister went on to talk of our joint wisdom. I wonder if, within the minister's position, the use of the pronoun "our" in that case by the Prime Minister was a sort of royal or editorial "we", and that this parliament is not to have an opportunity to debate the agreements. If the Prime Minister is to be believed-and in these times that is very important-then surely he should be careful with his language. This is the place where joint wisdom might just perchance assist the government.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I agree that this is the place to share and to exchange views. I hope the material that I have made available, and the agreements themselves, will make it possible for hon. members to consider whether there are additional ways in which we can achieve the objective of non-proliferation.
I heard one extreme suggestion this afternoon, namely, that we declare a moratorium on the supply of these nuclear reactors which are urgently needed for power generation purposes and for social and economic development. I have heard that point of view, which I reject. I have heard very few suggestions, apart from the work that we ought to be doing in the suppliers' meetings, for the improvement of the international safeguards system that we have put into these two agreements.
I remind hon. members that we have taken every possible precaution in the case of the Republic of Korea and in the case of the Republic of Argentina so that no Canadian-supplied material, technology or equipment can be diverted for explosive purposes. That is our obligation. In the case of the Republic of Korea, we have been advised that their order for a reprocessing plant from France has been cancelled, thereby denying the opportunity at this stage of completing the fuel cycle.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: At this stage.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I made a reply to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands that I think is a response to the valid interjection of the Leader of the Opposition. However, we must also bear in mind that in the Republic of Korea at the present time there is under construction a power reactor supplied by the United States and a second one under order. The United States obviously has an interest and an obligation in this situation as well as Canada. In the case of the Republic of Argentina, there is no implication, direct or indirect, that Canada through its nuclear reactor is in any way adding to the freedom or ability of the Republic of Korea to develop nuclear weapons if it so decided.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Argentina, you mean.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Argentina does not have a reprocessing plant. The reactor that is there, supplied by Germany, is under safeguards. The heavy water that is supplied by the United States is also safeguarded. Canada is adding nothing to the infrastructure of the Republic of Argentina that

would justify the fears that have been raised by hon. members today. On the contrary, it has fully safeguarded its own participation. I believe it has created an incentive, if not an obligation, to possibly upgrade other suppliers operating at present or in the future, in the Republic of Argentina. I believe we ought to bring in all the facts before we denounce Canada as being an agent of proliferation. In this case we are an agent of non-proliferation and an agent of economic and social development in countries that desperately need that development.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question for clarification. I understood the minister to say a few minutes ago that Argentina had a small experimental separation unit. I later understood him to say that they do not have a separation unit. If the minister makes a distinction between a large separation unit and an experimental one, may I point out that the explosive device which was produced by India was made from a small experimental unit. A small experimental unit is just as capable of extracting plutonium as a large one, except that it only produces small quantities. That, however, can be accumulated over a period of time.
In view of the statements the minister just made, and in view of the fact that most of what he said today was based on the documents that he will make available to hon. members-the position papers and the actual terms of the contract-is he prepared to give us an opportunity to discuss this at a later date? I received this material at about 10.45 this morning, and the House started at eleven o'clock. I did not have a chance to read these papers. If the minister is basing his whole case on the basis of the documentation with which he is supplying us, as I understand it, we ought to have an opportunity to examine that documentation and then discuss it subsequently at the earliest opportunity.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it is true I stated that the Republic of Argentina does not have reprocessing facilities of commercial or military significance. I am not an expert on these plants. However, I am advised that the amount of plutonium, provided you had a reactor from which to extract it, that would develop from the plant referred to is not significant and is not a viable danger. That is the distinction to be drawn between the commercial and military significance and the laboratory model, the potential of which I have described as accurately as I can. I have undertaken to consider the possibility of further parliamentary discussion of this question. I repeat that to the House, and do so in good faith.
January 30,1976



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, January 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-68, an act to amend the Medical Care Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, at ten o'clock last evening we were debating the amendments to this act which would limit the annual increase and the per capita costs of insured services under medical care plans. I wish to take a few minutes in an effort to develop background material for the amendments now before us, because of the fact that when the original act came into effect there were many people who said we would be having trouble at about this time. This would now appear to be the case.
Last evening I had reached the point where I referred to an article in the Medical Post, a journal published, rather interestingly, by Maclean-Hunter Limited. I think in a few weeks we will hear more about Maclean-Hunter when we hear how the government wishes to stamp out Reader's Digest and Time magazine. In an editorial written under the date of January 6, 1976, this magazine has some interesting comments which I believe warrant consideration. As I read these excerpts, I should like members to think of the three aspects discussed in this editorial. One relates to the predictions of increased high-cost medical care a number of years ago by very reputable authorities and, second, the fact that there may have been some ulterior motives on the part of the government, first of all when it introduced the plan, and even again now, we might suspect. Third, there is a hint in this editorial of how improvements might be made that would help reduce the cost of medical and health care. I quote as follows from this editorial of January 6, 1976:
All of a sudden the politicians have decided that our sickness care system, which they did much to create, has become too expensive.
Too expensive compared to what?
Apparently most of them have forgotten that Mr. Justice Hall in the Hall Commission report back in 1964 predicted costs would run to 7.04 per cent of gross national product in 1976 and he was working in 1957 constant dollars. At the present time the total cost of all U.S. sickness services is running about 9.0 per cent of that country's GNP. According to figures from the Ontario Ministry of Health the total sickness services in the province is running almost exactly 7.0 per cent of the provincial GNP.
But, of course, the politicians designed an open-ended system, mainly because it looked good to the voters, and decided to operate the entire system through tax revenues, making it look as though the whole service was free. It was not free, of course-it just looked that way because the government undertook all payments and collected all the taxes to pay for it. Thus was the tap of public expectations turned wide open, while the politicians basked in their cleverness.
It did not take long before the deliverers of the service began to realize that having the tap of expectations left on full resulted in a huge demand for service. Eventually the politicians began to realize that once that tap had been turned on full it was extremely difficult to close it off, even a little way. They tried all sorts of maneuvers to turn back the tap without appearing to do so; they accused the doctors of overusing the system and railed against the gross inefficiencies in hospitals
Medical Care
and set civil servants to finding alternatives to the system to reduce costs. But they dared not touch the real problem, that excessive flow of public expectations.
The editorial goes on to say this:
The outcry about accelerating sickness care costs have come mostly from the politicians who are afraid they have come to the bottom of the taxpayer's pocket.
And they are right in that fear.
Yet nobody seems to suggest that perhaps the public look on the present sickness service as so important that it will pay a share of the cost of the service directly-and that the public itself will by this means turn off some of the flow of service expectations which it has been educated to expect.
No politician has broached this because he probably feels his constituents might not like it.
Finally, there is another paragraph which reads:
The idea of having the public pay some of its sickness service directly is probably verboten around the ministry.
It is our opinion that the whole government-financed sickness service has been over-extended and mismanaged since it started. Now financial pressures are forcing governments to look for scapegoats and the sickness service is going to be one of them. It is going to be curtailed whether the taxpayers approve or not simply to bail out a government which has grossly overspent for years.
I draw the attention of hon. members to the three points I raised before I read this editorial. First of all, a person- no less than Mr. Justice Hall who was chairman of the royal commission-anticipated this problem and, second, it is suggested that the government had some ulterior motive in wanting to get votes, by this scheme, back in 1967-68- and one wonders whether this still applies. One begins to wonder whether the government has an ulterior motive now in trying to control the income of physicians by bringing in this bill at the present time. Perhaps more worrisome to some of us is that one wonders whether we will have sprung on us, in the next year or two-or certainly before the next election-some other universal welfare plan that will put us in even deeper trouble.
Perhaps this is the reason the government is trying to cop out of the plan already in effect and is trying to get rid of some of the charges that have been turned over to it in the hope that there will be money left over, somehow, for other plans which will be brought in and which will place another strain on the country. The third thing in this editorial of the Maclean-Hunter Company publication is a hint that probably there is an opportunity yet in this country for Canadians themselves to feel some responsibility for looking after their own health care.
I was encouraged somewhat in the debate yesterday when the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook) conducted a very judicious plea as he gave his presentation with respect to this bill. I think my hon. friend and professional colleague from Halton did a good job, riding several horses. He certainly did well on behalf of the medical profession and on behalf of the Canadian Medical Association. I think he did reasonably well on behalf of his government. But I was very pleased to note, as recorded in Hansard of January 29 at page 10450, that he said:
In light of these complexities, the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Health and Welfare have apparently promised not to impose any more universal programs on the provinces, hopefully, not even on the country.
I hope the hon. member for Halton is correct in that we will not be confronted by this government with more,

January 30, 1976
Medical Care
similar schemes. In reviewing the historical past of this bill, I should like to conclude with a further quotation from someone all government members opposite respect, namely, former prime minister Lester B. Pearson. I shall quote from the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, of November 13, 1975, page 68:185. A submission to the committee at that time contains the following quotation from the statement given by Mr. Pearson:
It is a national responsibility, a federal government responsibility, to ensure that our medical care insurance program is comprehensive, universal, publicly administered and portable. If a certain standard of public medical services is needed and approved by Canadians generally, appropriate fiscal resources have to be brought into play on a national scale-
I underline the word "national".
-in order to make the services available to a national standard in all parts of the country.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, at that time Mr. Pearson felt this was a national responsibility and not something that could be approached in a unilateral and arbitrary way by the federal government alone, as is being done at present.
I should like to move on to other broad areas in this debate. I will touch very lightly on the first one, that is, some of the other effects of the bill before us. This has been dealt with rather adequately by many previous speakers, and I do not wish to take a long time on it. The effect of this bill on the quality of medical care no doubt will be very great, and it is a risk which the people of Canada will be facing. If the federal government puts more of the expenses of medical care on the provincial governments, they will either have to take more money from the people of the provinces or they will have to curtail and limit medical services and other health care services. I think this is a regrettable situation, but I will not take up more time because we have heard about it from several speakers. Incidentally, this is bound to affect the poorer provinces more than the richer provinces, and that is deplorable.
The second area which has been dealt with adequately, both by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook), speaking on behalf of the government, and by other speakers on this side, is in connection with the effect this bill may have on physicians' incomes. There are now two pressures on physicians-the anti-inflation measures and the amendments in Bill C-68. This is regrettable, in view of the fact that back in 1971 physicians took the government at its word, and when the Young commission advocated voluntary restraint, that was carried out by the medical profession. They will be the ones to suffer because they tried to co-operate at that time. Enough said about those two situations which I find regrettable.
Now I want to go on to some positive aspects of the legislation before us. I do not want the minister to feel that I am only attacking his policies on health care. Sometimes we hear it said that the opposition parties should always be on the attack. I am not sure that should be so. I think that sometimes positive things come from the government side, and this should be acknowledged. The minister alluded to the fact that there will be some reductions in health care costs by virtue of the seat-belt legislation which is being

implemented across the country gradually, and the reduction in permissible speeds on highways. I dare say he is right to a certain extent, but I would remind him that we are debating a medical care bill, not a health care bill.
If one looks at the medical costs saved by the seat-belt legislation and the reduction in highway speeds, one finds it is true that some reductions may be effected in medical care costs, but they are far greater in the health care field. If a person smashes his head in an accident and lies unconscious in a hospital for six months, the big cost is not the medical cost but the health care hospital cost. If a person has two or three fractured bones and is in hospital for several months, again the medical care cost may be equivalent to four, five or six days of hospitalization, but the hospital stay of three or four months which is required is much more significant. So I think we must not feel too satisfied that by introducing these pieces of legislation we will reduce medical care costs, but we may be largely reducing hospital care costs.
The other matter about which the minister spoke was his effort and the effort of the provincial government to improve our lifestyle as a means of saving health care costs. I think that is commendable, but we should look at one more point in reference to that question. We must begin to think about the concept of an experience rating of our health insurance plans in accordance with our lifestyle. This is not a new concept. We do it now with life insurance and we do it with collision insurance; we also do it through the Workmen's Compensation Board. However, I am not so sure we shouldn't do it with health insurance. People who choose to lead lifestyles that are less than healthy and are conducive to high costs in the health care field perhaps should have to pay their share of that extra cost. That is one thing the minister should consider in the future.
Another possible means of controlling excessive health care costs might be through legal and other mechanisms for providing payment for allied health personnel. We could resort to paramedical professionals, to some extent, who have developed skills that do not require as much training and education as those required by physicians and yet are very essential. The cost of providing such health care assistance is somewhat less. However, the problem is that at present there is no legal mechanism which would permit the practising of those skills or payment for those skills in conjunction with physicians' services. The government should study this matter.
Of course, there are times when hospital facilities can be built more cheaply, and this would reduce health care costs. However, let us revert to the matter of bringing about legal changes in the system. We are fast approaching the state which exists in the U.S.A. where legal actions against physicians and hospitals are increasing at an alarming rate. There is no question that this leads to increased costs of health care, if for no other reason than that physicians and other health care personnel, in order to protect themselves against possible legal action, greatly increase their requests for certain lab work, certain X-ray work and certain consultations. I think we should be looking at ways and means of limiting the number of legal actions and the amounts of these claims to a more reason-
January 30, 1976

able level, thus relieving some of the financial pressure on the health care system.
Another matter that should be considered is that in recent years increasing emphasis has been put on training young physicians in the use of hardware and tjie technology of medicine, rather than in the old skills of history-taking and plain, physical examinations. These have been popular areas to stress in the last few years, but they are expensive and they increase health care costs. Similarly, the situation has been aggravated, I am sure, by the news media which tends to lay emphasis on the heroics of medicine, on heart, kidney or liver transplants as though these were the essence of medicine. I am not trying to deprecate or lower the need for research, both experimental and on humans, but since we are living at a time when costs are to be reduced, we should be careful about the money spent on these heroics in medicine.
Another area to which the minister might like to give consideration is the development of appropriate regulations to discourage high costs. Over the last ten years or so-for example, under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act-the provision regarding X-ray services was such that if you were an out-patient, your X-ray costs were not covered by the insurance scheme, but if you could finagle your physician to admit you to the hospital, your X-ray costs were covered. Not only did the state, or the plan, have to pay for the X-rays in such cases, but it also had to pay for the costs of the stay in hospital.
The same thing occurred with dental care services. For a long time, good dental services with general anaesthesia were being provided in the dentists' offices and the only cost to the plan was for the anaesthesia service. Then the government changed the regulations so that when the patient was admitted to hospital, everything was covered- anaesthesia, hospitalization and, of course, dental services in the hospital. This added further to the expense.
I am pleased to see that the minister is suggesting that he will introduce some low cost medical services into his new plan, and for this I think we must commend the minister, but I caution him in this one particular area. I have had some communication with a provincial minister of health on the topic of nursing homes. I have been approached by a number of my constituents who feel that it is absurd that health care plans should be paying for families to put their elderly relatives into nursing homes. If the children in a family decide that their parents are getting old and need more help, there is an economic advantage to placing them in a nursing home, whereas if the government saw fit to pay perhaps half the price it pays nursing homes on a per diem basis to those same children, they would look after the old folks at home, and everyone would be happier.
I caution the minister that if he is going to put more money into services such as nursing homes, he should be positive and see if we cannot spend that money in a cheaper way which will keep patients out of nursing homes and in their own homes if at all possible.
I am coming close to the end of the points I wish to discuss. There is the matter of perhaps considering transferring some tax points from the federal tax treasury to
Medical Care
provincial treasuries. That would give the provinces some feeling of control over their health expenditures and some assurance of revenue to provide those services.
Another thing the minister might consider under this legislation is removing these arbitrary ceilings he has included and putting them under regulations instead of in the legislation. This would allow some flexibility. We all know how difficult it is and how the government refuses to predict inflation for the future. It must be difficult to plan a rigid percentage at this time which would be appropriate. Surely it would be better to have flexibility built into this.
The government might also consider having a tripartite committee of some sort composed of federal representatives, medical profession representatives, and provincial people who could discuss some of the problems, particularly as they relate to medical care financing for the future.
I wish to conclude with some views on a matter which I think is very important. This relates to something I touched on earlier and something which was touched on in an editorial I read in the Medical Post. This is the matter of patient responsibility for his own health care and his participation as a patient in the provision of his own health care from an economic point of view. I should just like to take a moment to read something further from the report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs of the same date as before, November 13, 1975, at page 68:186. This is from the presentation of the Canadian Medical Association to the committee at that time, and I will read from the report:
Public education relative to the prudent use of medical services might help to lower frivolous patient demands for medical services. However, it remains our opinion that unnecessary, frivolous patient demands for medical services and overservicing by physicians would be most effectively controlled by some degree of direct personal responsibility of the patient in the payment for such services.
I will go on to what I think is another very significant quotation on the same subject. This is taken from the Canadian Medical Association Journal of October 18, 1975 at page 792. Dr. Bette Stephenson, now the minister of labour for Ontario and a former president of the Canadian Medical Association, was asked to appear before a subcommittee of the Congress of the United States on health care. They were trying to look into the future of health care plans there, and I quote from the Canadian Medical Association Journal:
Even more important, says Dr. Stephenson, it removes from the patient a feeling of responsibility for his own health. Dr. Stephenson noted that "the most significant advances in the health of our populations will be achieved through increased acceptance of personal responsibility for health maintenance, not through the provision of additional services. By all means protect the American public from catastrophic health care costs, but do not remove the individual patient from the financial aspect of his personal health care. Keep the patient involved."
There are many other areas, in the present concepts our government has, where it is taking away responsibility from the citizens of this country, not only in the health care field but in other fields as well. It seems to be the concept and the philosophy of the government that the more control it can have over the individual, the more effective and better lives the people of Canada will have. This has been proven historically to be wrong over the centuries. Civilizations have gone down to complete failure and doom where this sort of situation has developed. I

January 30, 1976
Medical Care
hope the government will see fit to begin to reverse its stand whereby it takes away all responsibility from individuals.
Just in summary, what I have attempted to do in this debate is discuss the origins and the historical background of Bill C-68 and why, in retrospect, it is completely unnecessary. That could have been predicted years and years ago, and indeed it was predicted. We must beware of further encroachments upon the individuals of this country, whether by more universal health care plans or whatever. Let us beware that there is not some trick in this bill by which the government will introduce something in the next two or three years, or even sooner, which will take away more responsibility from people.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have dealt at some length with a dozen or so ways which I think the Minister of National Health and Welfare should consider appropriate to help reduce both medical care and health care costs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. S. Victor Railton (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to review this legislation from the standpoint of a doctor. However, I want to make it clear that I support the minister and his legislation.
Bill C-68 is designed to amend the Medical Care Act. It was originally antedated or previewed by the June budget of 1975 introduced by the former minister of finance. In one section of his policy which was for retrenchment he brought out the fact that the government aimed to rewrite the Medical Care Act, or renegotiate the costs and percentages. He laid down ceilings, 13 per cent on increases for
1976-77, IOV2 per cent the following year, and 8'A per cent subsequently. He retained the per capita approach to determine the total contributions to the provinces.
Apparently there is some desire on the part of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) to keep the IOV2 per cent as a figure for the subsequent years, and I think this might be a good idea. No one in the medical profession in this country fights a policy of control very strongly. They recognize the need for prevention of unregulated cost increases in medical care. Somehow both hospitalization and medical care costs will have to be renegotiated, and they might need restructuring. Health delivery care systems may eventually have to evolve, and most doctors are strongly against cuts in national medical research which is given to universities and the Medical Research Council.
In certain countries in Europe, and in the United States, large multinational corporations of the pharmaceutical industry do much original research. Canada enjoys this second hand. These companies also subsidize university and research institutes in those countries.
It is important for Canada to retain her present eminence in research, and it is hoped that the medical research funds will not be cut, but rather that they enjoy the same rate of increase as the hospitals and the medical profession; in other words, according to the present guidelines.
There has been much argument in Canada about the whole health delivery system. The four cornerstones, universality, portability, accessibility, and government

administration are very prominent in our minds. We cannot argue with that a great deal, but in certain ways we do.
The cost of medicare was rising at over 20 per cent annually. It would be irresponsible to allow this to go on. However, the doctors that I know feel that free medical care, irrespective of recipient's income, is one of the weak points of the system. Many people also believe that old age security for everyone cannot be defended.
There is no doubt that health and accident sickness insurance companies were charging in their premiums $1.25 to $1.55 for every dollar of benefit. But cost of administration had risen in the last few years. The government claims it can provide a dollar benefit to hospitals and medical incomes for $1.03 from tax money. This is rather unrealistic to me. This does not take into account any of the expenses required to borrow money or the expense in the civil service for the handling of money. It refers only to the administrative costs of doling it out to the provinces.
Doctors feel, as far as I can make out, that there should be a sliding scale of participatory payment of insurance according to incomes. I agree with that idea. The socialist group feels that a means test is a demeaning manoeuvre. This is not so, in my opinion. The very wealthy would pay a certain premium for the same services and the scale would descend to zero at the poverty line, which would presumably take in a great many of the retired people, invalids, handicapped, and other low income groups. Everybody would be given identical care in doctors' offices and in hospitals.
In Ontario many small hospitals are about to be closed. There is a rumour that the city of Port Colborne may lose its hospital; this would be a shame and I cannot quite believe it.
A sizable percentage of "acute" beds are being closed in every hospital in the province. This is an attempt to reduce the cost of hospital care, and it is quite true that many people are in acute beds who do not need that level of care. It is also true that there is a small percentage of people admitted to hospital and treated surgically as well as medically when these patients are not always in the category of urgent treatment. I think that the type of doctor practising in this manner is not as common as some years ago, but this type of practice did exist. However, I would hope that the provinces will call a halt to the closing of these acute beds at such an alarmingly rapid rate.
Hospital care may be cut to some extent because that was the portion of the cost which was increasing at such a rapid rate. Doctors' incomes have had a low rate of increase for the past several years. It was about 4 per cent in two of the years, 7 per cent plus in another year, and there was no increase in another two years. At the same time one has to remember that there was a windfall increase in doctors' incomes of around 35 per cent to 40 per cent when medicare was institued. This was due to the fact that 90 per cent of the bills were paid instead of 65 per cent to 70 per cent. One cannot forget, however, that the doctor does get paid for only 90 per cent of his potential income under medicare.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare states that doctors will have to regard their raises as related to the
January 30, 1976

year 1971. But more truly would be the years preceding the institution of medicare, because their style of life did rise very quickly since medicare began. All this will have to be accepted. Dr. Grisdale of Calgary, President of the Canadian Medical Association has already appeared before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs and indicated acceptance of the guidelines since October, 1975.
One thing that worries doctors in Canada is the role of government in medicine. Our government has a tendency to point to the improving infant mortality and longevity tables as if it were due to medicare. However, these same improvements are present in the United States, where there is no universal medicare. These improvements are really evidence of increased medical and public awareness of the need for better care for pregnancy, good care at childbirth, and the post delivery care of the infant, along with the recent institution of intensive care therapy. Improvement in health in Canada recently stems from the great advance in medicine and surgery following the second world war.
One has to give credit to the provincial governments as well as the federal government for building excellent hospitals in the affluent years of the fifties and sixties. Certainly all these improvements in health have not been due to government interference in the health field, that is, as far as medicare is concerned.
At this time I would deplore attempts to curtail too quickly our present style or system of medical care in hospitals and in doctors' offices. One must realize also that there is a dangerous feeling in some circles that prevention or personal change in living habits will do a great deal to make everyone healthy and almost put the country in such a blessed state that a great reduction in the cost and complexity of medical care can be produced. This, I think, is an impractical dream.
The huge population increases of the past 20 years have been really due to the discoveries in preventive medicine. Starting with such things as prevention of smallpox, plague, typhoid, cholera and other widespread epidemics, and the introduction of antibiotics which have reduced deaths from bacterial infection, to the subject of viruses- which may come under control soon; all these have collectively conspired to lengthen longevity. However, we still do not, and will never have complete control over blood and tissue tumors, natural disasters, road, rail and air accidents, industrial accidents, congenital defects, and defective organ inheritance producing premature mortality. Certainly change of life style, reduction of obesity and other health hints will do something, but will not change much the need for hospital care.
Painful maladies, low back pain, degenerative arthritic joints, causalgic pains have been treated in the past by irregular practitioners, and by everything from quackery to faith healing, yoga, transcendentalism, and acupuncture. Recently there was a scientific breakthrough with the discovery of transdermal electric stimulation. This may be very helpful or even curative. These simply are things which are here and must be mentioned because they do take a lot of medical care and are not amenable to amelioration entirely by "taking thought".
Medical Care
One of the benefits that the voluntary health committee of the House of Commons conferred was to hold a luncheon meeting with Dr. William Ghent of Queen's University, and Dr. Ken Wilson of Ottawa, to discuss the question of traffic accidents. In that committee they showed us that half the mortality, half the morbidity, and half of the cost of traffic accidents could have been prevented. They were working as members of the traffic accident research foundation. This body proved that the total cost to Canada of road accidents is $2 billion annually. The number of lives lost in the province of Ontario is over 1,700 annually.
Prevention is directed to reduction of the number of alcoholic drivers, reduction of the speed limit, and the mandatory use of seat belts. These would be very easy to promote in a big educational campaign on television. I believe the Minister of National Health and Welfare is pushing this concept at the present time.
All these things that I have mentioned have helped reduce the amount of sickness and the number of people who die too early, or who are incapacitated by illness. However, there is a belief among some health and welfare officials that we could get along in the future without much medical care if people believed in the precepts of proper personal health direction. I regret to say that this is not at all likely, and I do not think that the present number of hospital beds should be reduced any further.
When this act is passed the provinces of necessity will have reduced their expensive hospital facilities to some extent. By then they can enjoy a long breath as they look forward to the next two years. It would appear that the lOVi per cent would be the bottom of the reduction as allowed for annual increase. This of course will be dictated by the inflationary rate and the new agreements.
When we discuss a health care delivery system we have to admit that our present system has grown without too much planning. It has developed in line with those of all other modern industrial societies. However, we have now a medical profession which is enjoying private practice without its members being salaried government servants as they are in England, Sweden, and to some extent in Germany.
We have built large hospitals with excellent emergency departments and excellent intensive care units. The hospitals have been departmentalized and any urban centre of
20,000	or over has usually had an excellent staff of general practitioners, pediatricians and specialists in all the usual diseases, all well trained and academically certified. Many people wonder why anyone would change this. The only reason of course is to cut costs.
I do not think there is much doubt that in the parts of Canada which have average density of people, medical and hospital care are known to possess the highest quality in the world. When one talks about changing the present system one would have to experiment, and a sudden experiment might be disastrous. At the same time we will have to make some changes in the system. It is quite irresponsible to let total medicare costs absorb more than the 6 per cent or 7 per cent of the gross national product, which they now absorb.

January 30, 1976
Medical Care
I have been in Nigeria where they had one genito-uri-nary surgeon for the whole 20 million people in the north. I have been in India and have seen highly trained specialists congregating in the cities and doing general practice for wealthy people, instead of accepting public health positions at a low salary to bring medical care to the poor.
In Canada our main unserviced areas are on the frontier. Certainly salaried people, doctors, nurses, and technicians, should be provided and are being provided. We are doing our best with aircraft to transport seriously ill victims of sickness or accident to proper centres.
There are very few Canadians who would really accept the second-class services of community centres after having had the high quality medical care which they now enjoy. It is all very well to use a nurse and a nurse-practitioner as front line defence against the surges of applicants for medical care, or to use a surgical technician instead of a doctor to assist in operating rooms. I have gone through all that in my army experience, and in Nigeria. It just is not as good. So I believe that furture lowering of costs can only be done by continuing sensible preventive medicine and pruning frills from hospitals and medical care. Some of these expenditures are due to inertia and laziness. For instance, total laboratory examinations, totally complete X-ray examinations, and total physical examinations sound good, but are merely ways of avoiding taking an interest in each patient, spending the time necessary to dig out a complete and pertinent set of facts about the case history, and doing a fair amount of thinking about the case.
Although we could do much to improve mass health delivery systems, we will never improve on the combination of experience backed by academic qualifications, and the use of brains by the medical practitioner.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish to intervene in the debate taking place this Friday afternoon in this quiet, thoughtful atmosphere. I listened to a couple of thoughtful speeches which were made this afternoon.
I read the speech of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde). I am afraid I could be in the House long enough to hear only part of what he said, but I read his speech with great care.
I was also unable to be present in the House when the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) spoke, but I read his speech with great interest. I thought it was a thoughtful and strong speech on the subject. I notice that there was some controversy about the extent to which the Minister of National Health and Welfare listened to the hon. member for Athabasca. I do not know to what extent he was able to listen to the hon. member for Athabasca, but I hope that in this quiet, thoughtful atmosphere he will listen to me.
The hon. member for Athabasca said just about all there is to be said about the bill when he described it as an arbitrary, unilateral act by the federal government. Since I feel that this bill reflects a most arbitrary, unilateral approach to health care and, in a broader sense, to federal-provincial relations, I feel impelled to intervene in this debate, even thought it is 3.30 on a Friday afternoon. But

no matter how eloquent I may be on a Friday afternoon, I doubt if I can express my indignation at this bill.
I hope the minister will not mind my saying that in my various capacities I have been involved in this area longer than he has been. I do not say that with a view to delivering him lectures on how the Department of National Health and Welfare should be run. I say it simply as a preface to my remarks, which arise out of my experience in negotiations connected with health plans.
Although as a provincial premier I was not involved in the negotiation of the hospital plan, I was in politics in those days and followed closely the scope of the plan. I know beyond doubt that the nature and terms of the plan were dictated by the federal government of the day. Some provinces had grave reservations about all aspects of the hospital plan, but the federal government persisted and, eventually, all provinces of Canada were persuaded to participate.
I was involved in the negotiations leading up to the medicare plan and know, of my personal knowledge, that the representatives of the Government of Canada insisted on the present medical plan being adopted if the government were to participate. The federal government imposed this program on the provinces. I do not for a moment say that all provinces were reluctant to accept. If I remember correctly, the province once headed by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) did not have great reservations about the plan as proposed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They were in the field.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Yes, they were in the field, and their plan was substantially the same as the present program. But, as I am sure the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands will agree, not all provinces came to the federal government. Not all of them knocked at the door and begged for a plan in precisely the form of this plan.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They were induced to come in.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: They were induced to come in.


An hon. Member:: What about your own province?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must listen.
Many provinces had grave reservations about the form of the plan and were gravely concerned that it would lead precisely to the kinds of difficulties about which the government is worrying today. An even more basic concern of the provinces when these programs were being negotiated was that the federal government would get them launched, run around the country pounding their chests, proclaiming the great thing they had done, and then saddle the provinces with the cost. I felt this concern as the premier of Nova Scotia and I know it was felt by other premiers too. And that is exactly what we are seeing today. The government has given notice of its intention to withdraw from the hospital plan.


Marc Lalonde: And replace-
January 30, 1976


Robert Lorne Stanfield: And replace what?


Marc Lalonde: And replace the financial arrangements.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Here we see the government attempting to impose a ceiling unilaterally, not on the cost of medicare in this country but upon the federal government's contribution toward the cost of a program which the federal government itself has insisted that the provinces establish and administer. Madam Speaker, surely treachery is not too harsh a word to use to describe conduct of that kind. There is no other word for it. I must say it is consistent with the behaviour of a government which seems to regard itself as in no way bound by its word.
The minister has offered what he considers to be some concessions. He intends to move amendments which he described as improvements. One of these alleged concessions is that the very arbitrary ceilings on the federal contributions for the years 1976-77 and 1977-78 would be preserved but that from then on a new flexibility will be introduced. The rigid ceiling which was in the previous bill is to be dropped. Let me say that the ceilings for the next two fiscal years are entirely arbitrary. They are not to be related in any way to what will happen, to what the experience of the provinces might be, or to the success or failure the government might have in controlling inflation. The ceilings which remain for the next two years are entirely arbitrary, and the minister cannot justify using those figures or asking parliament to adopt them.
In the second place, far from having made a concession or an improvement in taking out the ceiling for the subsequent fiscal years, the minister is giving himself a blank cheque in those subsequent years. That is what he is asking parliament to do. Much as I would hate to see those set ceilings continue-I would fight them in the next two or subsequent years-I would prefer to see some figures set out in the act than to see the provinces left to the tender mercies of the minister after what he calls consultation with the provinces. I say to him, Madam Speaker, that after the next two years for which there are specific ceilings set out, the government, if it is still in power-and God preserve the people of Canada from such a fate-the minister, or any minister who might be minister of national health and welfare, could arbitrarily impose a ceiling of his own choosing on the contribution the federal government would make to the cost of medicare in this country.
I do not think the hon. gentleman will have much success in persuading anybody on this side of the House, or very many people in the country, that the government will in fact work out an agreement with the provinces as to what those ceilings should be. I am as sure as I am standing here that not one member of any provincial government today believes the Government of Canada will do anything but impose a highly arbitrary ceiling on its contribution following the two years in respect of which ceilings are set out. I say that if parliament passes a bill imposing specific ceilings for the next two years and giving the minister, or the government, the discretion to impose ceilings for subsequent fiscal years, parliament will be participating in a betrayal of the total understanding upon the basis of which this plan was launched a number of years ago.
Medical Care
The minister spoke of incentives. He wants to give the provinces a greater incentive, he said, to control the cost of medicare. As the hon. member for Athabasca pointed out, the provinces already have a very strong incentive to control the cost of hospital care and of the medical program since, in rough terms, they pay 50 per cent of the cost. This, in itself, is a very significant incentive. It is hard enough as it is for many of the provinces to bear the 50 per cent of the cost they are called upon to pay, and they struggle mightily to control the expense of this plan.
If the minister does not yet know, I can tell him it is very difficult for the provinces to control increases in the cost of these programs. Certainly I can speak for my own province. The provincial commission dealing with medicare and the one dealing with hospital care are very tough. If things are anything like they were when I was premier-and I suspect they are-they are constantly at war with many parts of the province in connection with services or improvements which are wanted in one direction or another. The problem is that every body wants as high a standard of service as it suspects anyone else is getting. I just heard the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton) say he does not think the number of active beds should be cut down any further. I also heard him say he felt it would be a mistake to bring about any drastic revision of the doctor-patient health delivery system which now exists.
The nature of the plan imposed on the provinces by the government makes its cost very difficult to control. I agree as to the importance of control. I agree also with what the minister had to say about preventive measures which could be helpful. His suggestion about cutting down highway accidents is one which appeals to me. I spoke in the House on this subject the other day and I certainly would support the thrust of his efforts in that direction, together with measures he might propose.
It might well be that health delivery care arrangements could be more efficiently organized, although I would judge from the remarks of doctors to whom I have spoken, and from listening this afternoon to the hon. member for Welland, that there are no great magical possibilities in this area. Granted that there is room for improvement in these delivery systems and that we should try to determine needs, I cannot accept that the federal government, which virtually imposed these plans upon the provinces, should now impose an arbitrary limit on its contribution during the next two fiscal years, trying to arrange things so that, following those two years, it can impose upon the provinces any limit that the minister of health may see fit. That to me, Madam Speaker, is unacceptable.
I do not want to be offensive to the minister or his colleagues, but I have to say that the announcement out of thin air in the budget of the former minister of finance last June, and the subsequent steps the minister of health has taken to implement the announcement, are conduct that I can only describe as shabby and treacherous. I have to say to you, Madam Speaker, that the rules of parliament prevent me from expressing to the minister what I really think of him and his colleagues in this regard. I call upon this House, and upon what I hope are some decent members on the other side of the House, to reject this effort on the part of the minister of health and his colleagues to go
10504

January 30, 1976
Medical Care
back on their word and betray everything they stood for when they were making these enticing propositions to the provinces and the people of Canada a number of years ago.


Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Madam Speaker, I am happy to take part in this debate this afternoon, especially because of the opportunity offered to me to join in the discussion just after the hon. Leader of the Opposition has spoken on the same subject.

I feel it is important that at this point in the debate I seize the opportunity given me to praise the work of the Leader of the Opposition in this difficult period of history for his party. I have admired him especially during the last two weeks because I know he has had some very important decisions to make, and in all of them he has shown a great sense of fairness and justice for all those involved in the forthcoming leadership convention. I am greatly impressed by the way he is performing his present functions.

However, Madam Speaker, I cannot agree with some statements he made today. On the one hand, he said that the federal government had imposed medicare programs on Canada. I do not believe that is correct. On the other hand, he mentioned that in the bill before us, the government is taking unilateral action without giving adequate consideration to the provinces' budgetary plan that must take inflation into account, as all other governments of this country have to do at the present time.
Madam Speaker, when we are talking of consultation, we must not restrict the scope of this term, that is refer to consultation merely in terms of expenditures. When a decision is taken about the number of hospital beds, or about building new hospitals, or else to enlarge existing services, it is quite obvious that all these decisions have an immediate and direct effect on the bill to be paid.
In the context of the present legislation, the federal government is prepared to meet the costs without saying a word about how they are incurred. The provinces have full discretion to plan the extension of their services and the salary scales of health professionals.
Now, Madam Speaker, both factors cannot be excluded from the bill to be paid. Thus, for example, in Ontario in measures announced before the budget speech in June, the salaries shown for health professionnals as well as aids were to be increased by 22.6 per cent for 1976-77, by 20.7 per cent for 1977-78 and by 18.6 per cent for 1978-79. In the same province salary increases of over 50 per cent were granted to nurses on an 18-month period for 1974-75 and they were even prepared to vote another for 1976. Substantial raises were also expected in British Columbia.
It is quite obvious, Madam Speaker, that if all provinces unilaterally establish a fee schedule and decide to plan hospital facilities and to improve medical cares-those are objectives shared by each and every province-all those provinces incur expenses which are certainly desirable but they do so without a second thought for the bill they will have to pay. Those provinces contribute so much to swell the budget expenses that it is impossible even to think about any budget planning in health costs in Canada.

However, Madam Speaker, you know that on October 14 the Prime Minister urged the provinces to better co-ordinate their public outlays because health expenditures are those we will have to reduce in the first place. I cannot think, Madam Speaker, it would be possible to co-ordinate our budgets at both provincial and federal levels unless we have considerably more than an inkling of the amount of the bills we will have to pay within five years.
It is essential, Madam Speaker, that the provinces put their own planning in order, not to prevent them from improving the services they administer to the patients in their own area, but to ensure that the improvement of services will be the same throughout Canada.
It is true that some provinces are in a better financial position. They can put more money in health services than others which unfortunately are financially limited. And those provinces which are financially well-off exercise considerable pressure on those which find it hard to maintain minimum standards.
Bill C-68 does not seek to prevent provinces from upgrading their services or moving within a planning scale. Bill C-68 aims at setting minimum standards within which the federal government will continue to participate in the planning and financing of the existing program upgrading.
Consequently, Madam Speaker, I do not think that the provinces which have additional funds allowing them to keep on upgrading their services will be prevented from doing so in the present situation. The danger and the risk we are now facing is that without this legislation being passed, the financially underprivileged provinces will not be able to catch up with the well endowed provinces which will have made progress while we have lost all control over soaring costs.
Bill C-68 is not then an imperative legislation, it is one which tends to maintain the philosophy the federal government has always advocated and defended since the beginning of the seventies.
You will recall, Madam Speaker, that during those years we had reached an agreement between the 11 government levels to sign the Victoria Charter.
You will also remember, and the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Stanfield) took part in those sittings, that during that conference one province in particular had not given its agreement, mainly on the basis of the coordination of health and social security services in Canada.
Now, it is absolutely striking that today the same province unilaterally supports the objectives of federal coordination and acknowledges that the role of the federal government is to maintain these minimum standards of health and social security services. Therefore, I do not accept, as some members of this House would have us believe by their indignation and their protests, that the provinces are completely unhappy with the health care plan as it is now administered in Canada.
Obviously, there are some parts of the country which are not served adequately. In some regions, there is also a lack of physicians and specialists. It is the responsibility of the province concerned to provide such coordination within
January 30, 1976

the province. It is its responsibility to establish a scale of wages, salaries and allowances which will result in equal health care services for all citizens, wherever they live.
Bill C-68, Madam Speaker, is not designed to keep Canadian citizens from equal access to health, but rather to avoid an over-concentration of health services where the financial basis is wide enough to provinde the luxuries which other areas of the country unfortunatly cannot get in this economic context.
Consequently, far from being in jeopardy, the objectives the government had set itself in the '70s, when it tackled the gigantic task of the internal organization of health services, will be achieved. In fact, Bill C-68 is designed precisely to better guarantee the citizens access to health services in times of inflation. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I cannot agree with claims to the effect that the government is acting unilaterally. On the contrary, the very provinces who are least able to make up for increasing costs are all for Bill C-68.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Not at all, that is simply not true.


Serge Joyal: It would never occur, Madam Speaker, to any sensible person, that he should foot the bill without having a say in the decision. Nor would it ever occur to any of the governments in Canada to increase thoses taxes because one of them, whether in Western or Eastern Canada, in central Canada or elsewhere in the country, is adding indirectly to the costs to be borne by the federal government, through its decision to improve its own services over and beyond the national standards.
We are now in a situation where the federal government will have to curtail projects, and programs of extreme importance to the betterment of the living conditions of Canadians, unless it does something about increasing health costs. I feel, Madam Speaker, that Bill C-68 is intended to ensure that the government of Canada maintains its leadership within the minimum standards that must apply throughout the country.
Bill C-68 expresses the federal government's desire to ensure that provincial governments, which want to provide more than minimum standards will seek in their own coffers the money they need to update their medical services. Consequently, this is not unilateral action, but action intended to protect the poorer provinces and allow them to offer the minimum standards within their present medicare services.
The leader of the opposition protests, he has the right and he has to do so. I listened very carefully and I hope that later he will have the opportunity to answer to my questions, but I am personally convinced that the medicare program, as it presently works, was not imposed unilaterally by the federal government. On the contrary, this discussion has been lasting for the last nine years. The first bill was introduced in 1966. The debates lasted more than five months, and though during the 1965 campaign the three main political parties in Canada-the Liberal party, the Progressive Conservative party and the New Democratic Party-all recommended complete medicare, when the vote was taken in the House in 1965 all those parties voted by a margin of 90 per cent for the adoption of the present medicare system. It would be misleading the House to pretend today that the government had imposed
Business of the House
medicare at that time. On the contrary this debate has been going on for nine years. Ever since 1970 there have been many federal-provincial conferences aiming at achieving closer coordination of the health and social security programs. At each stage of the discussion, at each level of decisions, there were press releases expressing the consensus which was beginning to take shape within the different governments of Canada in view of continually improving health care.
However, Madam Speaker, when financial measures aiming at improving the coordination and distribution of funds are adopted there are always government levels or agencies which do not feel free to take advantage of the financial options which may exist within the whole budget. Let us remember that the aims of Bill C-68 are written in the law which was adopted by Parliament in 1965. Therefore it cannot be said that we are dealing with a unilateral measure but on the contrary with a measure which is in keeping with the government's aim to ensure accessibility to the same quality of medical care throughout Canada.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Madam Speaker, may I call it four o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it agreed that we call it four o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. At one stage this week there was some uncertainty about what we might be dealing with on Monday. Can the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader advise the House of the government's intention for Monday?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to advise the House that on Monday we will be proceeding with Bill C-68.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills, private bills and notices of motions.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Madam Speaker, after consultation in the usual way, I believe there is general agreement to deal with private members' order No. 57 under public bills on page 11 of the order paper, a bill standing in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it agreed that all the other orders shall be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
2 I I 30-43(4

January 30, 1976
House of Commons



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Stanley Howard Knowles: that Bill C-257, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965, with respect to the quorum of the House of Commons, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization.
He said: Madam Speaker, I suppose it is because the notices in the lobby indicated that this would be the subject of debate this afternoon that we have a better attendance at four o'clock Friday afternoon than we usually enjoy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, do all these interruptions come out of my time?
The purpose of this bill is to exercise our right in the Parliament of Canada to amend the British North America Act with respect to matters that are exclusively federal and, in doing so, to increase the quorum for sittings of this House of Commons.
Ever since the year one, namely 1867, section 48 of the British North America Act has read:
The Presence of at least Twenty Members of the House of Commons shall be necessary to constitute a Meeting of the House for the Exercise of its Powers, and for that Purpose the Speaker shall be reckoned as a Member.
I suggest that if any of us were to ask, as I have, ordinary persons what they think the quorum of this place is, from those who do not know you would never receive the answer 20. Some think it is 50 per cent, or 50 per cent plus one, and when you tell them it is not that high they will come down to 100 or even to 50, but those who do not know never come down to 20. They find it difficult to understand when they are told that it is 20 in a House of Commons whose members number 264. They find it difficult to understand that it is only necessary to have 20 members present to carry on the business of this House.
I wonder if hon. members are aware of the reason that figure is there. I suggest it was not just pulled out of a hat. It is the figure that was in the rules of the old parliament of the province of Canada which was in existence from 1841 to 1867. There were in that assembly 130 members, 65 from Upper Canada and 65 from Lower Canada. We have seen again some of the sessions of that House in the Pierre Berton CPR show. I simply say to members that that is where we got the figure 20.


An hon. Member:: From Pierre Berton!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not from Pierre Berton although it would seem that we get a lot of things from him. We got it from a house of 130 members which had a quorum of only 20. When 1867 came along and this
[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin).]
House was constituted the original membership was 181. I suppose the Fathers of Confederation thought that if 20 was a sufficient quorum for 130 members it was sufficient for 181 members.
But we are now 264 members, and surely the fact that 20 was sufficient for 181 or 130 does not mean that it is a sufficient quorum for 264 members. As a matter of fact where did that 1841 assembly of the United Province of Canada get the figure 20 as a quorum? It got it from the rules of the assembly of the earlier body which constituted Lower Canada or Quebec by itself. I confess I have not been able to find out how many members were in that body. I hope someone will find out and tell me, but I suspect it was a much smaller number than 130, probably 65, 70, or something like that.
It is all because some time ago in a small body of 60, 70 or so members, 20 was a quorum that the figure 20 has persisted down through the years; now we have 264 members and it is still our quorum under the BNA Act and the Standing Orders of the House. The quorum is still only 20. I do not think that is good enough. I think the public is justified in being concerned that at times the attendance of this House can get so low.
If I seem to be levelling any criticism in saying this I am levelling it at the entire House and at all parties. None of us can throw many stones when we talk about attendance in the House, although I suppose I could put in a word or two to the effect that my attendance record is not bad.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was hoping I would get applause for that and I thank my hon. friends, especially those opposite.
I know the arguments that will come forward during this debate. Earlier this afternoon I noticed one of the hon. members opposite handing out sheets of paper to four or five members on the government side who usually take part in the talking out process. I asked him where was my speech. He did not give me one, so I have to make my own.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. On the question of creating speeches and handing out speeches I think if the hon. member is to make comments of that type he should indicate to the House that he received exactly the same material that was handed out to members on this side of the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was avoiding embarrassing the hon. member by not indicating who it was, but now he has done so.
I know one of the main arguments will be that there are other things members of parliament have to do. There are committees, there is work in the office, and there is work back in the constituencies. However, I suggest there never is a time when 244 members have to be out of this House at the same time. That is what is being said when it is argued that the quorum can only be 20 because members have to be somewhere else.
The committee process sometimes becomes almost impossible, but we never have more than five committees meeting at the same time. That would account for 100 members, but our membership is 264 and I submit that
January 30, 1976

these arguments that we cannot be here because of the requirement to be other places does not really stand up.
It is argued of course that all the debates are not exactly interesting. I suppose that is an argument which could be made right now; why stay in the House to listen to me speak? This is the main thing we are elected to do. We are elected to be members of parliament and to participate in the democratic process here on the floor of the House of Commons. We have to do a lot of other things, too, and we do them.
This is a full time job. I do not think any of these arguments excuse us from having a much better attendance in this House than we have a good deal of the time. We are here at two o'clock. This place is almost full and the press gallery is full, but a little later there are very few members here except the Friday afternoon faithfuls who are always here, and we still have one faithful in the press gallery.
Someone will point out that I have introduced this bill quite a number of times. That is true. I have not counted the number of times but it is probably 10, 15 or 20, and I have not yet succeeded. I think I shall win my point very soon. I may not win it by getting this bill passed or by having the quorum increased, but I think I shall win my point that there should be better attendance in the House. Do you know what will do it? Television.
If we get the television cameras in here and the people back home start to say, "I was watching the House of Commons the other day-where were you because I did not see you?"-this will have its effect. I hope that day is not far off. There is a motion on the order paper having to do with this and the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization has spent a good deal of time on it. I do not think this is far down the line. So, as I say I hope that day will soon come and we will have better attendance in the House because the people will be watching us and expressing to us the view that we ought to be here.
I know one argument that will be raised against increasing the quorum to 50, which is what my bill proposes to do, and which I believe is consistent with 20 prior to 1841 and 20 between 1841 and 1867, will be that because of one rule, namely, that when the House is found to be short of a quorum it must adjourn for the day, this would put us in some difficulty.
One of my colleagues whom I shall not name said to me when he heard what I was going to do at four o'clock, "What do you want, Stanley; do you want the House to adjourn every day?" I do not think it is impossible to keep 50 people here. But I would be happy to change that other provision and provide that when the House is found to be short of a quorum instead of adjourning we simply stop the business of the House for a moment and the Chair order the bells to ring and get the members in here and carry on.


Mr. Francis:: But your bill does not provide for that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I point out to the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) that neither does the BNA Act provide that other rule. In fact the rule under which we adjourn for the day is not even a
House of Commons
Standing Order, it is in the citations in Beauchesne somewhere. So that would not be difficult to alter at all, and I think that if this bill were sent to a committee that is one of the recommendations that could be made. With the very high attendance this afternoon-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six of us in my
party are here, and if the same proportion of all the other parties were here this afternoon that would give us an attendance of about 100. We are not quite up to that, but the attendance is pretty good. At any rate I suppose that with the liveliness in the debate and the fact that a good many members have already made their contribution by interrupting me, the possibility is that this bill will get the usual Friday afternoon treatment.


Some hon. Members:: No, no!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope that there will be a general consensus that, whether my bill in its precise form is approved or not, the subject of attendance in the House should be discussed and that for that reason this bill, or certainly its subject matter, ought to be referred by the House this afternoon to the appropriate committee.
It has been a joy to get all these responses. I am glad to know that members are interested in this question. I really do not see how anyone can defend a mere 20 as a sufficient quorum for the business of the House. I certainly think it should be larger. I think we should take steps to improve the attendance of members in the House, and for that reason I hope that this bill will either be passed this afternoon and sent to the appropriate committee or, if that is too much for hon. members to swallow, that at least the subject matter will be sent to the appropriate committee so that this question can be thoroughly discussed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Will the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) allow a question from the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams)?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Certainly, with pleasure.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will put my question very succinctly. What is the quorum in the British House, and what would be the hon. member's comment on what I am sure he as a senior member of the House appreciates, namely, that if all the British parliamentarians appeared in the House on one day there would not be room for them to sit? I should like the hon. member to comment on those two questions.


An hon. Member:: Forty.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has already been given the answer from across the way. The quorum in the British House is only 40 out of a much larger number. Perhaps they have something else. Their House is smaller, there is not enough room for everybody to be there. I think that perhaps if we

January 30, 1976
House of Commons
had to crowd together to get into this place we might be here in greater numbers.
May I also remind the hon. member that in both Houses in the United States the quroum is 50 per cent plus one. But of course down there they follow that other rule that if the House is found to be short of a quroum, instead of adjourning the bells are rung until members get there. I recognize that there is a quality of debate in the British House that is not always apparent here. But I sat there a few times in the gallery when it was as dull as this place can get.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: But I suggest that there are other things that make up for the quality of debate there that we could emulate as well.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my colleagues on all sides of the House in welcoming on behalf of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) a most unusual number of his colleagues here. As we enter what I think is one of the most important parts of the parliamentary week, that is, private members' hour on Friday afternoon, we are all happy, those of us who are here regularly on Fridays, to say to our good friend and senior member of the House that the loneliness of his usual weekly sittings has been lifted by the presence of his smiling colleagues around him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I want to say that frankly I look forward to next Friday when I am sure that group over there will increase from five to eight. They must not overdo it!
My hon. friend knows from the friendship between us and the very high regard that I have for him that I make those remarks in friendship, and I make them knowing that there is perhaps no one more concerned about the proper workings of this House and its committees than is the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I think that is acknowledged. However, there are some who are equally concerned, and I suppose there are some who do not really care, but the majority of us care rather strongly about how this House looks.
However, you know, Madam Speaker, there is a lot more to parliament than how it looks. There is a lot more to being a member of parliament than appearing in the Chamber, although I would have to say that this Chamber is the focal point of parliamentary life.
I believe the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wool-liams) touched on something that was quite important a few moments ago. He spoke about the quorum in the British House of Commons. The membership in that House is over 600, and yet their quorum is only 40.
The British House of Commons is held up as the model for the operation of this House of Commons. One of the things that struck me when I first visited it was the difference in the size of the chambers. Their chamber is small and compressed. But the debates I have heard there on six or seven occasions had a spontaneity about them

and an element of true debate which is not present in this House in the sense of the interruptions, the back and forth throwing of comments, and the exposure in a graphic way of the two sides of the coin, and in some cases three sides of the coin, because we have to remember that we have a minority party of some significance in the House, at least in their estimation of some significance.
I think we made a mistake in some respects in terms of the workings of this House when some time ago we increased the membership of the House. I think we could have considered decreasing the size of this House physically, the removal of the benches to provide a real debating chamber, which there is in fact at Westminster. There are some nights when it is dull there. However, I remember the last time I was there in November of 1974, and they were debating emergency legislation arising out of the difficulties they were having with IRA activities in London and in the surrounding communities. The day I was there a bomb went off in Piccadilly as I was walking through Piccadilly.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Walter David Baker: I disclaim any responsibility for that happening, but nonetheless I was there, and the headlines of the papers in London were dramatising that situation. The House of Commons was under guard on that occasion. Even with the pass given to parliamentary visitors one could not go from one door to another within the building without being stopped. It was a very dramatic situation. The House was not full for the question period, only half full.
As the debate wore on through the night there were fewer members on that occasion of great emotion in the British House of Commons than there were here throughout the whole of the all-night debate we had with respect to the rail stoppage some time ago. Yet the quality of that debate in terms of the issues being discussed was one of the high points in my life in terms of listening to the utterances of public men in the forum to which they were elected.
When we are dealing with this matter we must be sure we are not dealing with it only in terms of cosmetics. Members of the public have come to me saying that the House is empty and that there should be better attendance. I think the House would be full if there were always the drama of the question period or an emergency situation of some kind, but our life is not like that, and our House of Commons is a reasonable reflection of our life in this country. While I sympathize with the objectives of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I do not think this is quite the way this should be done. It is true that the life of a member of parliament is different now than it was in 1867 when this parliament started, or during the existence of the parliament of Upper Canada when the quorum was higher.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Upper and Lower.
January 30, 1976


Walter David Baker: My hon. friend referred to Upper Canada in the course of his remarks. There has been a basic change in our community, our society, and our way of life. We have much faster communication than there was at that time in terms of telephone, mail-sometimes-and in terms of the ease of people moving back and forth across the country. What has happened is that there is a burden placed upon a member of parliament-and I do not use that word in its usual sense-such as was never a burden in those days and which, by the way, is not the burden of a member of parliament in the United Kingdom today, and that is the intensity of the day to day constituency work of a member of parliament.
I do not have to quote the numbers of letters, requests, complaints, suggestions, and other things which have to be acknowledged and dealt with by a member of parliament. The office work of a member of parliament is a very important part of his representative capacity.
The hon. member mentioned House committees. There are a tremendous number of them. I suggest that perhaps we might think they are too large, but as our society changes and becomes more complex we will be working more and more in House committees.
I dare say our speeches are too long. I think they are repetitive. I think hon. members on the government side are from time to time too silent-and I do not necessarily mean to criticize the government, although that would be a delightful thing from the point of view of the opposition- in terms of exposing the two or three sides of every issue in a way which does not happen at this time.
If there were something interesting, engaging or absorbing in terms of a particular member of parliament and his responsibilities for his constituency, I dare say that member of parliament would be here for that occasion, but I think it can reasonably be argued that if the issue could be handled with greater knowledge by other members of parliament because they live with a particular problem, then those not directly involved ought not to have to sit in the House. If they do sit in the House they may be neglecting another very important part of their responsibility in representing 125,000 or so Canadians. Speaking candidly, I think we have lost a bit of spontaneity in debates because people tend to read speeches, and we tend to speak to each other-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The hon. member seems to forget that the subject of the bill is the quorum in the House of Commons.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I was just coming to that, and your intervention could not be more timely because what I am saying is that, despite the good intentions of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre with respect to a quorum, it can be, and on many occasions would be merely cosmetic rather than getting to the root of the problem, which is improving the opportunities of private members to have ideas considered here and later in committee, improving the quality of debate in the House, helping members of parliament to obtain information, and helping the backbencher on the government side to participate in debates of this House.
If those things were done it would not be necessary to do what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is
House of Commons
asking us to do, and it is to fly in the face of parliamentary tradition to become more conservative than the Conservatives by citing, as he does, the precedent of the rules of the House of Upper Canada. That is going back a long way, even for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order or to ask a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Walter David Baker: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member not like to keep it straight that we got our quorum from the 1841-1867 parliament, and that that body got it from the assembly of Lower Canada, not Upper Canada?


Walter David Baker: I think it is safe to say that while the hon. member may have been a member of the parliament of Upper Canada, he certainly was not a member of the parliament of Lower Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: That's worth three points, Walter.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, my time is getting rather short, but let me say that I think everyone in this House appreciates the intentions of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I do not think there is any doubt about that, but if all of us and those who are observers of this House of Commons would think about it for just a moment-and certainly all hon. members have thought about it-there are many things in terms of some of the matters I have mentioned which might achieve what the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) has urged for parliament, that is, to make parliament live a bit more than it does.
I think it is important as well that while we have shortened the time for communication-we have electronic devices to help us, computers that solve problems in a shorter span and we can produce things more quickly-we should note that the average member of parliament still just does not have enough time. I think all of us, including the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, want to improve this House of Commons realistically for the benefit of members on all sides of the House.
I hope I will be forgiven if I say I am particularly interested at this point in improving the rules and other amenities of this House for members of the opposition. I think that is important to the parliamentary process, but the procedure that the hon. member has proposed is not going to do that for members of parliament in their representative capacity. I want to thank all hon. members for their interest this afternoon, and I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is grateful as well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

January 30, 1976
House of Commons


Mr. Rod Blaker (Lachine-Lakeshore):: Madam Speaker, I want to, and I will retain my great personal respect for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), not only because of my admiration for him personally as well as with respect to his role as one of the leading members of the House of Commons but also because he is renowned as one of less than a handful or fewer members of the House who are experts in parliamentary procedure.
I am going to do everything I can to make a distinction between the hon. member personally and my feelings about Bill C-267, which I find utterly without merit and which completely dissatisfies me.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre proposes that we increase the quorum from 20 members of parliament to 50. The suggestion seems to me to be something less than meritorious. It seeks not only to worsen an already unsatisfactory situation in this House but goes even further, and suggests in effect that we willingly take this House back to nineteenth century Britain when the British parliament was organized to meet the convenience of a small group of titled lords and not very busy ministers.
The hon. member knows very well indeed that it is the governing party, the majority-in this parliament the Liberal party-which is traditionally bound to provide sufficient members to meet the quorum of 20. Not only do we do that but as the governing party we provide approximately 70 members from this side as ministers, parliamentary secretaries, Speaker and Deputy Speakers, committee chairmen, whip, deputy whips and so on. On top of that work load and time load, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre now suggests that we add still further to the problem by having to meet a quorum of 50 rather than 20 members.
Hon. members should look around the Chamber. There are at least two Liberal ministers here and there are 25 or perhaps 30 members of the Liberal party here. As is the case today, and is the case every day of every week in this House, it is this party that provides the quorum, not the NDP, not the Conservatives, and not the Social Credit.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roderick Blaker: If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had simply suggested in his bill that he wanted to amend the British America Act and the standing rules of the House to provide there would be all party responsibility for this quorum and every party would contribute to the time factor by having its members sitting tied to their desks, I might have found some sympathy for him.
I certainly do not find any sympathy for the bill the way it stands. It would simply see more Liberals tied at their desks in this House while members of his own party and other opposition parties rush across the country suggesting to citizens that the government is not getting its legislation through, that we are not doing our job, that parliament is not working. It is no bloody wonder! It is because we are tied to our desks here while at the same time no similar obligation rests on members of the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roderick Blaker: I would suggest to the hon. member that he take his idea back to his caucus, then go to the Conservative caucus and the Social Credit caucus and tell them that they are going to supply the quorum. I would be delighted if that happened. I do not think they would buy the idea.
Other members have referred to the British House of Commons. The quorum there is 40 out of 635 members. That is 6 per cent of the membership. Our quorum is 20 out of 264-8 per cent. The hon. member now proposes we go to a quorum of 20 per cent or 50 members. What for, Madam Speaker? To make us look better for the media? The media regularly report to the country at large that the House is empty but they never bother to say that there are scores and scores of members in their offices or in departmental offices, or seeing constituents, or working on legislation, or working on committees.
I am not going to suggest that we add 30 more Liberal members of this House-the governing party-simply to satisfy someone who says it looks better, when he does not bother to explain that every member of the House from every party has too heavy a work load already. There is no rationale to this House sitting the number of hours it does. There is no rationale to members sitting here day and night.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roderick Blaker: I know my next remark can be interpreted personally by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I do not mean it that way, I mean it with the greatest respect; but some of us do have families and I am getting a little fed up watching the effects on my children of not having a father 12 or 14 hours a day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roderick Blaker: Madam Speaker, I want to remind the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre of something. He and I, with others on the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, went to London to study the system at Westminster. We were very impressed with their efficiency because in two or three days they can get legislation through the system whereas it takes us two or three weeks, or months!
We wound up at a meeting where we talked to a very important person in the labour party. I am not going to mention his name. We were from all parties in Canada and I do not want to embarrass anybody by mentioning his name, but he was very senior in ranking. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre knows who I am talking about. We admired the system in Britain and we said, "You are so efficient, but how do you deal with the third party, the minor parties? How do you make sure they can participate in the system?" It was the very senior Labour party man who responded, and I quote him exactly, "We treat them with the contempt they deserve". We do not treat the smaller parties in this House with that contempt, Madam Speaker.
Look at the committee system here. If there were any rationale to the quorum being proposed by Bill C-267, why is it that in the committee system virtually every committee with which I am familiar has already organized matters so that no vote will be taken in the absence of one of the
January 30, 1976

minor parties? We give them that courtesy. What do we get in return? A demand that 50 Liberal members sit here listening to opposition members drone on for hours on end.


Mr. Yewchuk:: As you are doing now.


Roderick Blaker: As I am droning on right now, as the hon. member suggests. I want to put forward a proposition, Madam Speaker. If that comment came from the Conservative benches I want to make it very clear that logic and history say we are going to change sides, and some day the people on the Conservative side are going to form the government of this country. I do not think they are any more anxious to put up with this procedural flim-flam than I am or anybody else on this side.


Mr. Prud'homme:: I hear silence from the Conservatives.


Roderick Blaker: I want to point out some of the difficulties. We all talk about the UK system, about the mother of parliaments, but I should like to point out a couple of defects.
I am fed up seeing 30 ministers of the Crown sit here every day for an hour and a half when they do not have to be here, when three quarters of them are not asked any questions whatsoever, and the balance from time to time cannot believe the lack of organization in the questions they are asked. The administrative and executive time of the governing party is tied up partly on the front benches. In the United Kingdom there is a roster system and the men and women of parliament are out doing their jobs, not sitting twiddling their thumbs and waiting to answer questions that never come.
I am fed up seeing the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) put in the same position every day. In the U.K. the Prime Minister goes before the House of Commons for question period maybe every two weeks, or on special occasions. In addition, the questions addressed to the Prime Minister of the U.K. are written in advance, provided to him in advance; hence he has the opportunity to answer them properly. The problem here is that we are continually agreeing to allow the question period to be completely the prerogative of the opposition parties; the cost is that we are tying up talent and all sorts of qualified people who are not needed for the theatre, so to speak.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The hon. member is making a modest speech.


Roderick Blaker: It is a modest speech, for I, as a backbencher, am simply expressing the frustrations felt by scores of other backbenchers in this House who are fed up to the teeth waiting for procedural reform to take place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roderick Blaker: I cannot find any merit at all in this bill. It seems to have something to do with cosmetic effects for the press and news media. Is it felt that it will look better in the press if we fill the House with more members? If that is the theory, I do not want to stay here tied to a desk for the benefit of the news media. That is not my role in
House of Commons
life. Perhaps we should change the law, or the constitution, and secure better attendance in the press gallery.
I find no merit in this bill, with one exception. Obviously it has made one backbencher damned annoyed. I will put it this ways. I have been here only three years, and I am sure members far senior to me are laughing because they recognize the frustration of backbenchers with procedures of the House.


An hon. Member:: Give up.


Roderick Blaker: To those who are ready to give up I say I am not yet ready to give up. This question will resolve itself in one of two ways. Either we are going to satisfy the Canadian people that we are serious and here to do our best to meet the problems of this country, or we will continue to operate some sort of play-pen in which half a dozen, or a dozen, or some small number enjoy the use of particular procedures available, and carry on to the detriment of getting legislation through the mill.
If it remains a playpen, those on my side will face one of two courses of action. Either we will get the opposition party, or opposition parties, to agree to reform the rules, soon, soon, soon-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roderick Blaker: -or I, for one, will stop being gentlemanly about it, go to the backbenchers of my party and plead to the best of my ability that we use the government majority and steamroller through reforms, and do away with the archaic, stupid tactics which are constantly being used in the House of Commons.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is a truly Liberal speech.


Roderick Blaker: There is not much more to add. Certainly it will not surprise the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to learn that I would not vote for this bill if his life, my life, or both our lives depended on it.


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I warn the House that words do not come as easily to me as they do the hon. member for Lachine-Lake-shore (Mr. Blaker). Nevertheless I shall try to put forward some of my views with regard to Bill C-257.
No one can deny the urgent need for the reform of the rules of this House. There are several areas of reform with which I shall deal as I proceed. I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is taking the wrong approach, and that is only one reason why I oppose this bill.
That reform of the rules is necessary is self-evident; but I am convinced that the kind of piecemeal approach which this bill represents will only add to the continuation of our archaic rules and procedures. Changes must come, but in an orderly and systematic fashion.


Walter David Baker: Without any steamroller.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: If necessary, yes.
2 ] 130-44

January 30, 1976
House of Commons
It is my hope, indeed, that if no agreement in the near future can be reached among the parties represented in this House-and I mean in the very near future-the government will have the guts to bring before the House a package of reforms and put them through, so that we can operate in the twentieth century, not in the nineteenth century.
As my colleague said, our present rules might have been all right in 1867, in Great Britain; perhaps they were suitable to a gentleman's debating society, or suitable for members who came from the landed gentry of a compact nation. But even in 1867 they were not applicable to Canada, I suggest; certainly they are not applicable to us now.
This is a large country geographically and, as the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has said, members of this House have many duties to perform besides sitting in this House. We have other responsibilities.
I am glad the hon. member for Lachine-Lakeshore mentioned family responsibilities, because I see no reason why being elected to this parliament should mean that we should have to abandon our families, let our children grow up without their fathers and, as fathers or mothers, miss the developing years of our children's lives. It is not right, it is not fair, and is not part of our service to this nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: The family is the basic unit of society; if we abandon it, what kind of example are we showing our nation?
May I quote briefly from Appendix "C" of the report of the Committee on Procedure and Organization dated November 20, 1975. Referring to procedural reform, the committee asks: "How does the Commons use its time?" The answer is as follows:
In the present session of parliament-up to the summer adjournment-the greatest proportion of time of the House of Commons was taken by matters other than government business. About 45 per cent was taken by question period, private members' hours, questions of privilege, adjournment debates and so on. Somewhat less than 40 per cent of the Commons' time was taken by consideration of government bills. Tne remaining 15 or so per cent of the time was taken by consideration of other government motions or on the Business of Supply, the approval of expenditures, (which takes place on days that are colloquially, but not completely accurately, called "opposition days").


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I see the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) rising. Does the hon. member wish to raise a point of order or ask a question?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have listened to the hon. member for some time and noted he is not speaking to the bill. Perhaps you could call him to order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I was about to ask the hon. member if he would speak to the subject now before the House.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Madam
Speaker, I considered that I was speaking to the principle

of the amendment to the British North America Act with which this bill deals.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The paper the hon. member has in his hand does not even mention the subject of the quorum.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Madam
Speaker, I do not know why it should make the two members of the NDP present in the House uncomfortable to hear how the time of the House has been wasted. But, if it does, I shall cease quoting from the document before me.
If we are to amend the British North America Act, and amend the quorum, we must introduce some other amendments as well. We must eliminate the practice of sitting here half the night three or four days a week. There is no need for it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: We must shorten the length of speeches and stop members from speaking for hours and hours on any particular bill or motion. There is no reason why members other than ministers or party leaders should speak more than 15 minutes on any topic. As far as I am concerned, 40-minute speeches on the part of other members of the House are unnecessary.
We must also place limits on the time available for the debate on any bill, and allow members to make arrangements whereby they can make regular and sensible visits to their constituencies. Also, we must assign to the minority parties in this House time limits proportional to their representation in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The purpose of the bill is very, very clear; it concerns the quorum in the House of Commons. The hon. member talks about changes to the procedures of the House. This is not included in the bill today. The bill clearly concerns the quorum in the House of Commons. The hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne).


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I thought I was trying to explain why I could not support the bill, but I shall not argue with your decision.


An hon. Member:: Take your punishment.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: A little punishment would not hurt you. We got it on Bill C-69 which the NDP held up for a week, and the hon. member who orchestrated it all was not even here for the vote.
As to the quorum which has been suggested, would it be required that each party should provide members of that quorum in proportion to its strength in the House, or would that responsibility be foisted mainly on members who sit on the government side, placing more work and
January 30,1976

more pressure on us in addition to our other duties in committees and elsewhere?
Will it mean, also, that in increasing the quorum in the House we should also increase the number of members required to stand up to demand a recorded vote so that the NDP, for instance, could not on any given day chain five of their members to the Chamber and then pop up and down every whip-stitch to require recorded votes in the House?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would he, along with that, say that when someone says no to a request to move a motion under Standing Order 43 he should stand up?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Sure. I would be most happy to stand up.
I intend to end my speech, now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: With all those notes?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: What is being put forward here today is not reform, it is a posture, and it is an excellent example of the waste of the time of the House to which I have been referring.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Madam Speaker, I would like to say just a few words about Bill C-257. First, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for presenting this bill.
No, I do not congratulate him directly because of the bill, but I am glad that he has given us the opportunity in the House to say something about the business of the House because we often hear things about attendance in the House which are not justified. The mover of the bill uses a comparison to ask for a quorum of 50. He compares the present situation with a past period, when there was an Upper and a Lower Canada. To be logical in his comparison, he should also compare the number of committees now and at that time. There may be twice as many members now, but there are now three times as many commitees. Indeed, 26 committees sit at the same time as the House. I heard someone say: We shall force representatives of all parties to take part in the quorum in the House. I was wondering how a party like ours could meet this requirement when seven, eight or nine committees sit on the same day. Madam Speaker, this comparison is impossible to make. It is simply illogical.
Regulations concerning the business of the House have now changed, and if we require the same quorum as in the past, it is because a greater number of members must work outside the House. I am glad to have this opportunity to reply to the people, since this will be read by the public. If we truly want to require a quorum when the House is fully capable of sitting, the quorum should also be required between two and three o'clock during the question period. I believe that this is the quorum that we could require, increase, double or triple. Apart from that, apart from the question period, as was said earlier, hon. members leave and the House becomes empty. How many times will we hear this? What the people do not know is that the House becomes empty because two thirds of the members have to sit on their committee and work there the rest of the
House of Commons
afternoon and often in the evening. If we want to come back to quorum of 50, we shall have to disband committees, to stop working in committee and do all the work in the House. Then it would be logical. But if we continue working in committee, I believe that it is illogical to require a quorum in the House. I do not have the time to speak about our work in general, others have done so in my place, but I still wish to congratulate the hon. member for giving another opportunity to the population to obtain some information. Those who read Hansard will learn something about the business of the House.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Madam Speaker, there are only a couple of minutes left, but I should like nevertheless to make some observations.
It is significant that the proposer of this bill should come from the one party which, from my nine years' experience in the House, has drawn attention to the lack of a quorum. A little game is played frequently. The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) is particularly expert at it. He looks around the House. If he thinks there are not enough people here he persuades his colleagues to go behind the curtain. He alone of that party is in the House, and there is a quorum called. It is a nice little game. The last time it was played was in 1974 when the question of the salaries of members was raised.
The hon. member who raises this point today talks in a bland way about the need to improve parliament although he knows himself that if this bill were accepted, with its one change, it would be totally unworkable and would make this place look ridiculous. He knows himself, by his own admission, that a number of other changes would have to go with it. He suggested, for example, not adjourning the House when a quorum fails. Why? I suggest something else should go with it. When a quorum fails Mr. Speaker should look at any party which has fewer than ten of its members in the House and not recognize any of them for the next week in question period. Maybe that would have an interesting effect.
What should we do with regard to opposition days, Madam Speaker? I suggest to my colleagues that there is no reason why they should make up the quorum when the opposition makes thundering charges against the government, and a few moments later there is nobody from the NDP party sitting in the House while it is considering their opposition motion. I think the rest of us should not be faced with the obligation of the quorum at all. If those who want to present a charge against the government are not sufficiently interested to make up the quorum themselves I see no reason why we on this side should make it for them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cyril Lloyd Francis: There are many games we can play, Madam Speaker, if we choose to do it, if we choose to be irresponsible, if we choose to be like the colleague of the hon. member who moved this bill today, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters). This, as we all recognize, does not bring credit on parliament. This one bill, with its single proposal, would be unworkable and would bring discredit on this House. It would have to be part of a package, a
2 1 1 30-4414

January 30, 1976
House of Commons
package which I would be prepared to support, but not one single item.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order. The hour set aside for private members' business has now expired. It
being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 2 p.m.
At 5.01 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, February 2, 1976