1976-06-25

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to propose a motion under Standing Order 43, the urgency and pressing circumstances of which are quite apparent. I therefore move:
That as a basis {or resumption of air transport the government forthwith put before the House a motion that there be no alteration and extension of bilingual air traffic control unless and until parliament has enacted legislation to that effect.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity stemming from events occurring subsequent to the matter I raised Monday with regard to the fact that three Unemployment Insurance Commission investigators and the RCMP were working full time on an investigation into defrauding the Unemployment Insurance Commission in the Ottawa area and examining the possibility that such defrauding was connected with trafficking in narcotics.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That the Minister of Manpower and Immigration advise the House immediately as to why, with his approval, removal was made within 24 hours of the matter being raised in the House Monday of the Unemployment Insurance Commission investigators working full time on this case, and finally, that the Minister advise the House all reasons why Real Meilleur, chief benefit control officer, and two former Ottawa police officers, Mike Richard and Claude Charron, were instructed to cease forthwith any further investigation into this matter.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 with reference to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and to emphasize, as a matter of principle, another example of unnecessary, unjust and arbitrary treatment of a fine officer, Sergeant Joseph L. N. Primeau, who completed almost 23 years of good service to the force.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski):
That Joseph L. N. Primeau be given a fair and impartial hearing and review of the circumstances involved in his discharge, which circumstances involved, among other things, further ramifications of the Securex matter, which has had widespread repercussions on the force, and which has graphically illustrated certain policy deficiencies and weaknesses in the upper echelons of the RCMP.


Mr. Speaker:: Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House for the presentation of such a motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. Now that it has been possible to compare more carefully the two versions of the terms of reference, the one agreed to by all parties involved and the new one prepared for the two new commissioners, could the minister explain why it was
14834______________________COMMONS DEBATES________________ June 25, 1976
Oral Questions
decided to change those terms of reference, and in particular, would the minister be prepared to re-issue the terms of reference using the wording which was agreed to by all concerned, the Ministry of Transport, the Treasury Board and the air traffic controllers, when they met in Newfoundland two weeks ago?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, first let me say that I believe there are only two changes of any significance of which I am aware. One is the potential for issuing interim reports, and the other is the removal of the specific reference to implementation costs in the body of the document, whereas it would, as I indicated in answer to questions earlier, be capable of comment by the commissioners under subparagraph (e) of the terms.
However, I should say that in my discussions on Wednesday evening with the representatives of the controllers I made it quite clear that in our view these were not significant changes in that everything was still before the commissioners and there was no great demand at that point for a change of the terms, but I certainly indicated that I was prepared to entertain discussions along those lines if in fact the controllers do indicate a preference for a somewhat different form.


REASON FOR ELIMINATION OF COST FROM TERMS OF REFERENCE OF COMMISSION ON BILINGUAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL
Charles Joseph Clark: I think the House would be interested in knowing why the reference to costs in particular was deleted from the terms of reference for the Sinclair-Chouinard inquiry, and it is obviously clear that a suggestion which creates a capacity to comment upon those matters is not at all the same as a requirement to comment on those matters. I should like to ask the minister to tell us now specifically why there was a deletion of the requirement to comment on the cost factor, and whether he would be prepared to give us an undertaking that such a requirement would be reinserted in the terms of reference?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, this matter is being discussed with the controllers. I should think that is the proper place for the discussion about the terms of reference to take place rather than across the floor of this House at the present time. I say that with full knowledge of the interests of hon. members in this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: If hon. members opposite would wait for a moment perhaps they would get some information. What I have said to the hon. Leader of the Opposition when he asked for the reasoning is that, first of all, it was in order to emphasize that the key role of the commission is very much related to the safety and operational efficiency

aspects of any proposal for air traffic control that it seemed appropriate not to throw another item into that particular section of the area; second, to give the commission some greater freedom about how much it did want to get into the cost question. I am prepared to say the real issue of what it will cost if further certain steps are taken is one upon which we will certainly be interested in having full information. I am prepared to undertake that we will make our estimates of costs available to members here, too, as we have them and before we take further steps. In any case, apart from the work of the commission we are prepared to make it quite clear what the costs are and, therefore, what it is what we are prepared to pay for the specific further implementation of bilingualism.


REASON FOR GOVERNMENT ADVERTISEMENT CONCERNING DISPUTE OVER BILINGUAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think it is not at all presumptious of me to suggest that the House of Commons itself is very much interested in this question of costs and that we would be more satisfied with a finding on the question of costs that came from the inquiry rather than simply from the minister himself. In light of that I would express the hope that the item might be reinserted in the terms of reference as a result of the interest of the House of Commons, bearing in mind that we, as well as the controllers and the minister, have an interest in this matter.
My supplementary question relates to the approach of the government toward the goal of trying to maintain an atmosphere of calm and avoid the inflammation of this dispute which has already become too seriously inflamed. In that light, I ask the minister why he felt it necessary to take the extraordinary step of issuing advertisements over his signature, paid for by the government of Canada, setting forth one side-the government's side, of this dispute-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: -and whether he would not agree that this kind of advertisement by the government of Canada will serve to inflame relations between the parties-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: -and if he would not agree specifically to desist from that kind of advertisement until there has been some resolution of this matter?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, in my view what is contained in the advertisement is an explanation of fact and of the truth. I thought it was not just our side but perhaps the hon. Leader of the Opposition's side as well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
June 25, 1976


Otto Emil Lang: I shall certainly try to do everything I can to avoid inflaming or inciting any additional feeling on this issue. But it should be obvious to all hon. members that, because of a great deal of misunderstanding and misdepict-ing of what we are doing and a certain amount of aversion to basic principles and policies, the country is aflame with antagonism toward fundamental Canadian facts like bilingualism. It will be important for all members of this House including, I hope, hon. members opposite, in support of bilingual policy to make it known throughout this country that our whole approach to any extension of bilingual air traffic control has always, as stated specifically, been: only when and if consistent with safety. But, given that consistency, we believe there are some rights of importance to francophones in this country, particularly in the province of Quebec, and I ask hon. members opposite to remember that.


Charles Joseph Clark: I would like to make it very clear to the minister that the matter of bilingualism is not at stake within the Progressive Conservative Party.

My question, Mr. Speaker, is whether the minister will not recognize that the kind of advertisement which was run this morning, coupled with the tone of some of the remarks unfortunately made by the Prime Minister in his speech on the matter, has served to inflame this situation. Would he not agree? I make this plea to him as one whose interest is in trying to achieve a resolution of this question and avoid any inflammation of questions relating to bilingualism. Bilingualism is not at issue. Would he please accept the plea of this side of the House not to engage in actions which are bound to be interpreted by the pilots and controllers as inflaming the situation, and would he desist from actions or advertisements of this kind in future?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the Leader of the Opposition noticed another ad in that same paper which he was waving, which is an example of another, basic problem in this country. I see the Leader of the Opposition nods his head about that. Now, what I should like to ask him is if he would-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Paproski:: Answer questions; do not ask.


Otto Emil Lang: -in response to his question-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is a natural and strong temptation to engage in debate over this question. I suggest we should keep to questions; therefore the questions ought to come from the opposition side, and not from the government side.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I assure you that that was rather a manner of speaking, not an indication that I expect the Leader of the Opposition to respond in this forum.
What I wished to say was this: I would be delighted to receive from the Leader of the Opposition any indication on whether any of the matters contained in that ad are wrong, false or anything but plain statement of fact, which
Oral Questions
is very much needed. I say to him that if there is to be an understanding of this issue throughout this country so that, indeed, bilingualism policies may be supported, it will be important for all facts to be known by the people of this country. If opposition to what we are apparently doing is based on failure to understand that a commission has been appointed, that we have put safety first, that we will take no steps if safety is jeopardized, that at present there is only a limited amount of air traffic control bilingually in five airports, going on to seven and only for visual flight rules; if it is based on the belief that there is danger in the skies over Winnipeg because there is bilingual air traffic control there now, and if those beliefs have been put abroad by a lot of people, some of whom have done it perhaps accidentally but some of whom may have done it without any good intent, it is important for us to make facts known and to make these factual statements. I will be pleased to have from the Leader of the Opposition any indication of what specifically is wrong in the ad or ought not to be included in it.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, what is wrong in the ads is that they add to the atmosphere of confrontation in which, on one side, the pilots and the controllers see the government as being opposed to the interests of the pilots and the controllers. All I ask is that the government of Canada act in a way that is not inspired by a stubborn desire to state its own case, but inspired instead by a determination to achieve a resolution of this problem. In order to try to achieve that kind of climate, will the minister consider desisting from this type of ad or from statements by other of his members which he must surely know will simply inflame relations between people whom he must bring together.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I believe that on reading the ad, if one is in touch with people across this country, one will understand the extreme misconceptions which occur across this country on this issue and which, therefore, have people inflamed against what we are doing, even though what we are doing, if properly depicted, has the full agreement and support, as I read it, of reasonable members opposite, including the Leader of the Opposition. The more important point right now might be for the Leader of the Opposition to indicate, as he did to the nation last night, that he does in fact support what we are doing because we have put security first, because we are saying to the pilots and controllers, "now, let us get back to work; we are taking no steps until the commission is over and taking no steps until safety is assured." With that kind of support from the Leader of the Opposition, the day of traffic flying again in this country will come just that much sooner.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SUGGESTED INCLUSION OF COST IN TERMS OF REFERENCE OF COMMISSION ON BILINGUAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker,
in his last two answers the minister appealed, on the one
hand, for understanding and, on the other, demonstrated

June 25, 1976
Oral Questions
the need to provide more facts. I remind him that one of the essential facts required for those who support the principle of bilingualism is to know the real cost in advance. If that is not known, the whole principle subsequently becomes undermined.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I say that seriously. I refer the minister to the answer he gave to me on Wednesday when I first pointed out the change in the terms of reference of the commission involving costs. He seems to have changed his mind a bit since then. He said on Wednesday, and I quote:
It might not want to pursue to the ultimate limit the question of total additional costs; -
The minister said at that time that was the reason for the government not now including in its terms of reference the question of costs. I would like to get a commitment from him now that the government will look once again at the question of costs in defence of the principle of bilingualism and make that a mandatory requirement for this commission to investigate.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I regret the diversion to this particular issue because, in the end, the impression will be left that in some way there is a lack of support for what we are in essence doing here. Therefore, I repeat what I did say to the Leader of the Opposition, that I really believe that the negotiation of this dispute between ourselves and the controllers-where, after all, the first terms of reference were developed-is the appropriate place for these discussions to be held. I indicate that, quite apart from what the commission might do with regard to costs under its general terms, I was prepared to do more specifically on our own part before action was taken; I should have thought that was enough to satisfy them.
If they want me to go further and say I will put on the table before the controllers that we re-include the cost expression up in the earlier paragraph rather than in the lower one, I will be glad to do that in order to make it quite clear to hon. members opposite they ought not to deflect attention to such an issue as that. Obviously, at certain points in time bilingual programs in this country will cost more than unilingual programs. We will know that; we will want to state that very clearly and we will want to defend those costs clearly and expressly and it will not be a part of this party's program at any time to hide behind the ignorance of costs but rather to know those costs, to support them and to fight for them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The minister is obviously desperate and trying to deflect attention from the issue. I would remind him that he changed unilaterally the terms of reference; he did not consult the unions involved.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: If we now have his assurance that costs will be reinstated, then those who are committed to the principle are just as prepared as is the minister-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I was pleased to hear the Leader of the Opposition assert this, too. All the parties are committed to the principle of bilingualism. But we want to look at it honestly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR ACTION ON ALLEGED BREACHES OF REGULATIONS GOVERNING BILINGUAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL
John Edward Broadbent: Since goodwill is obviously a pre-requisite to reaching an acceptable solution to this labour dispute, would the minister assure the House that current violations of existing MOT regulations as they pertain to bilingual air traffic control in the Province of Quebec will be looked into and corrected, because this is one area of concern expressed both by the pilots and by the air traffic controllers. Will the government give a commitment that those violations will be investigated and stopped immediately?


Otto Emil Lang: I think the hon. gentleman must have missed my opening remarks in answer to the Leader of the Opposition. I had already indicated a willingness on Wednesday night to review the terms of reference with the controllers and they did not show great interest in having this particular section reinstated. That is an important fact. He should realize that this is a matter that will be the subject of negotiation. I have now made the fullest statement I can possibly make about what I am willing to put on the table in those discussions.
I can also say that the incidents which were brought to our attention-and there were, I believe, a total of six in a period of about a week, two or three weeks ago-where an improper and irregular use of language was reported, have been the subject of investigation. Up to this point we have been able to verify the existence of four cases in which French appeared to have been used in IFR communication, contrary to the regulations. We are following up that investigation with appropriate action. We are on the verge of having the necessary information regarding what has happened to enable us to take proper steps and we will do that. So I do give the House an assurance that our regulations must be adhered to; that while we are trying to make progress with bilingual air traffic control once safety is assured, it is a fundamental principle that as long as the regulations prohibit the use of a language, that must be the guide for all controllers. That is what I have said time and time again, and I went to Montreal to say it to the controllers there who had been on the edge of some violations.


REASON FOR CHANGE IN TERMS OF REFERENCE OF COMMISSION ON BILINGUAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL RELATING TO SIMULATOR TRIALS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question, too, is addressed to the Minister of Transport. There are other ambiguities in the terms of reference to which I should like to refer. There seems to be some ambiguity as to the manner in which the new commissioners are being asked to deal with procedures devel-
June 25, 1976

oped in the simulator trials and the manner in which Mr. Keenan was being asked to deal with them. Could the minister explain the difference and why it was decided that he should change the manner of dealing with procedures, if only-and this seems to be the most important part of the whole business-to restore confidence which has been completely eroded?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the changes should indeed restore complete confidence. If the hon. member is referring to differences between the terms of reference when Mr. Keenan was appointed and the terms of reference now for the new commissioners, most of the changes were proposed and agreed upon for the Keenan commission prior to Mr. Keenan's resignation. Therefore, most of them were made as a result of suggestions or requests by the controllers themselves to which we, in our usual flexible way, to try to accommodate their wishes, were willing to agree.


ALLEGATION LACK OF ADHERENCE TO LANGUAGE REGULATIONS BY CONTROLLERS-REASON FOREIGN PILOTS BOYCOTTING CANADIAN AIR SPACE
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I think one could take issue with a statement of that sort just given off the cuff, but I should like to ask the minister whether he could comment on the report coming from the Montreal area control centre that language use regulations are not being respected or enforced. I wonder whether he would explain if this is perhaps the reason foreign air pilots have decided to boycott Canadian air space-because they are being confused and endangering their passengers?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker. Outside of the six incidents to which I referred earlier, of which four have been verified by the investigation to this point, there is no evidence of any substantial deviation from our rules in the Mirabel and Dorval areas where the incoming activity of a foreign nature, and indeed of Canadian transporter travel, occurs. There have been some rather more complicated situations arising at St. Hubert and they also have been subject to investigation.


Donald W. Munro: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister say what attitudes and positive matters he is going to take to the meeting that he is going to have this afternoon which will calm the atmosphere and enable negotiations to take place?


EFFECT OF DIFFERENCE OF OPINION BETWEEN THE TWO COMMISSIONERS INQUIRING INTO SAFETY OF BILINGUAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and it relates to a statement he made out of the House after the tabling of the terms of reference. As I understand the statement, bearing in mind the commission is a two man commission and the possibility that there could be a difference of opinion, with no third person to break the tie, so to speak, is it the position of the government that in the event of a
Oral Questions
difference of opinion between the two commissioners this would be taken by the government to be an indication, as the outcome of the commission, that it was not safe to extend bilingual air traffic control? I ask this because I think it is important that we all understand the parameters of the commission's considerations.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is important to understand that all along, as we have developed the program for establishing procedures for possible IFR flight control in the Montreal area, we have asked for the participation of the controllers and pilots and indicated that we did not see how we could proceed unless there was at the end, when we had the procedures ready, a broad consensus that the procedures were satisfactory and safe. We had always counted upon having to persuade reasonable individual pilots and controllers of the safety of our procedures. So I have no trouble in saying about the commission that safety is too important a matter to say that we could proceed in any way if there is any significant dissent, and the commissioners' dissent would certainly be significant. We would therefore need the approbation of the commission and the commissioners.


ALLEGED STATEMENT BY MINISTER OF LABOUR CONCERNING
Walter David Baker: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which has to do with the atmosphere that we were discussing a few moments ago. The Minister of Labour indicated yesterday that he was prepared to issue warrants under the Canada Labour Code to pilots who failed to return to work. I understand the position of the government with respect to breaches of collective agreements and all those things, but in view of the Prime Minister's admonition to "cool it", which I assume applies to the Minister of Transport, if it should apply, and to the Minister of Labour and all others, is the minister going to speak to his colleague the Minister of Labour with respect to these statements, which I think can only help inflame a situation which is a pretty serious one in this country? If he has not done so, would he do so in terms of trying to bring some peace to the situation?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Minister of Labour did not go out of his way to volunteer any such statement but rather responded to a question about what he would do as a matter of duty. I would say broadly speaking that what we want, of course, is as reasonable and positive an atmosphere as we can establish. On the other hand, there is the law, and the law is there to be enforced; we have certain obligations in that regard.


FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-
Madeleine): Mr. Speaker, I would like to move from airline
[Stage Direction]
June 25, 1976
Oral Questions
traffic to fish traffic in Canada. My question is directed to the Minister of State for Fisheries.
Could the minister advise the House and Canada fishermen what optimism they can expect from the ICNAF conference which has just ended in Montreal and what is the position of rosefish fishing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and eastern Canada, following the agreement between the Soviet Union and Canada which he recently signed in Moscow on behalf of Canada?
Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, I think that the conference which has just ended in Montreal yielded excellent results for Canada. ICNAF member countries have accepted that special efforts should be made to rebuild the stocks; thus the total rosefish catch will decrease from 985,000 down to 697,000 tons for the year 1977. On the other hand, Canada's share will be comparatively higher. As for the exchange of rosefish and capelin between our country and the Soviet Union, there was indeed an agreement that 14,000 tons of the Soviet quota would be transferred to Canada, as well as 1,500 tons of the Cuban quota in exchange for our support for a higher capelin quota for the Soviet Union.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DELEGATION FROM SOVIET UNION
Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to underline the presence in your gallery of a delegation from the Soviet Union.

Mr. Speaker, with your permission I should like to underline the presence in your gallery of a distinguished delegation from the Soviet Union to the recent ICNAF conference, which was led by their able deputy minister, Mr. Kamentsev.


Some hon. Members:: 

FISHERIES


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the Minister of State (Fisheries). May I ask him whether at any time preceding, during or following the ICNAF conference discussions took place with member countries of ICNAF respecting landing rights for these countries after we have declared our jurisdiction over the 200 mile economic zone?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I assume that the hon. member means landing rights for fishery products, not for repairing vessels. Normally, this matter would not come under the terms of reference of the ICNAF commission; it would be the subject of bilateral discussions and is part of the ongoing

discussions within the framework of our bilateral treaties with six of the ICNAF nations.



ELLIOT LAKE URANIUM MINE-POSSIBILITY GOVERNMENT WILL REQUEST SAFER METHOD OF OPERATION

Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister of energy, but in his absence may I direct it to the acting minister or the parliamentary secretary. In view of the large expansion program at Elliot Lake uranium mine and the ensuing waste disposal problems, has the Atomic Energy Control Board demanded that the company must utilize safer methods of operation, such as increased and continuously monitored ventilation, recycling of waste water and backfilling of surface pollutants underground, in order that we do not have a repeat of the severe health problems affecting miners at Elliot Lake?
[DOT] (U40)


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the Atomic Energy Control Board is constantly reviewing these standards relating to the health and safety of uranium miners. This is a shared responsibility with the provincial departments of health. I may say that the government is increasing its research programs this year by some $600,000 as they relate to continuous monitoring and improvements to the mine atmosphere, and they will work with provincial governments in this regard.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I take it from the answer that no new instructions have been given to the company about environmental safety.



MANPOWER


Reginald Cyril Symes: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that as of the end of 1974, the latest figures available, some 139 employees at Elliot Lake have a high radiation exposure, some as high as three times the allowable limit, and are having difficulty in being placed in non-exposure jobs above ground, will the minister establish a special job search and job creation program for these miners who are facing extreme health hazards by continuing to work underground?
Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I will note that suggestion
and consider it.
June 25, 1976



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General which has reference to peace and security and, particularly, safety for society. It is based on a new report that in respect of day passes there appears to be an absenteeism level of approximately one-third. In light of that report, whether it is correct or incorrect as to the percentage, would the minister be prepared to give a full statement on motions covering the details of absenteeism, the action that is being taken on recommendations to tighten up the system rather than have it like a sieve?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know to what report the hon. member is referring. The report I have in respect of temporary absence passes is that last year they were 98 per cent to 99 per cent successful.



SUGGESTION COURT ORDER BE OBTAINED BEFORE GRANTING DAY PASS TO CONVICTED MURDERERS

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, it was in the newspaper. Perhaps the minister would be prepared to answer this question as it is a serious one. As Bill C-84 deals with first degree murder and provides that even convicted murderers can get day passes with escorts on humanitarian grounds, and this is the law as it now stands, will the Solicitor General not agree, in view of the serious situation we dealt with in the committee and in the House, that under any circumstances, whether they are humanitarian or otherwise, when a person has been convicted of capital murder and given a life sentence, either through commutation as it exists today or under the law, there must be an order of a superior court before granting such leave? I do not think this would inconvenience anyone and would certainly provide the element of safety the public is looking for at the present time?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-84 provides that no day parole or temporary absence without escort can be granted until three years before the full eligibility date for parole. That means that for first degree murder there can be no unescorted absence until after 22 years, and for second degree murder until after seven years. If the date of full eligibility is changed by three judges of the court, as provided in the legislation, then there would be eligibility for day passes three years before the end of the eligibility date. These are very strict provisions and, at the moment, that is all we are considering.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the minister is deliberately doing this, or perhaps he is misunderstanding my question. He has answered it in one form. Let me put this specific question to him. Under Bill C-84, and this is as the law now exists, a person convicted of first degree murder may be released on a day pass with an escort. Putting aside the 15-year rule, and that is a beautiful thing to throw in as it confuses the issue, under the present circumstances will the minister not agree that
Oral Questions
under no circumstances when a person is given 25 years or life for first degree murder, whether it is of a police officer or as a result of a planned and premeditated act, shall the person be released before obtaining a judge's order, because we know how wishy-washy humanitarian grounds can be, and in this regard you just have to check the Geoffroy case?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time the hon. member has made that suggestion to me. I will look at it, but I must say I cannot agree with his statement that the great majority of escorted temporary absences are not being carried out successfully. They are being carried out in accordance with the Penitentiary Act. This is a new proposal and we will look at it.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. A. C. Abbott (Mississauga):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, I wish to address my question to the Prime Minister. The Leader of the Opposition has referred to the advertisement of the Minister of Transport. There also appears today a full page advertisement in the Globe and Mail sponsored by a so-called "Voice of Canada" concerning the present pilots' strike. Considering we are in the midst of a national emergency, and considering that this advertisement is riddled with vicious, false and misleading statements, is there no lawful method by which those persons sponsoring such an ad can be held legally responsible for such misleading statements?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would have to consult with the Minister of Justice to see if such an ad would fall under the heading of mischief or some other criminal offence. I think the existence of the ad indicates very clearly that this country is in very serious danger of being divided on as basic an issue as has ever divided the country in the past 34 years. I would hope that all parties in parliament and everyone in the country-


An hon. Member:: The chickens come home to roost.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would remind all hon. members that the question as put has a rather narrow scope, namely, the legal responsibility concerning statements in the ad, and I wonder if the Prime Minister would confine himself to that answer.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that I will consult with the Minister of Justice on this. I am somewhat disturbed by the remarks of the opposition. I was not trying to divide this House, I was trying to appeal to everybody, to every member of this House to talk to the country in the

June 25, 1976
Oral Questions
next few days and to make it understood that the issue in this regard is indeed national unity and no other issue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



AIR TRANSPORT


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, on that level I will go back to the Prime Minister and ask him this question. In light of the fact that one of the problems is in unlocking the logjam which now exists, and in view of the fact that, for a variety of reasons which in any event I would not be allowed to go into, there appears to be deep distrust, suspicion and an unwillingness to accept guarantees by the government, would the Prime Minister not consider the suggestion I made earlier, that a motion be put before this House which would make this place the underwriter of the government's guarantee in terms to be set forth in the motion?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think immediately of a debate in this House three years ago when the government brought the question of bilingualism before parliament, at which time opposition spokesmen of both the NDP and the Tories were suggesting this was a very decisive issue that we should not be bringing to parliament through this kind of a question. Now the hon. member is asking parliament to arbitrate in this particular case! I believe the reason members on this side said no to the hon. member's proposition is that the suggestion was, if I understood it correctly, that there be legislation by this House. That is the way his suggestion seemed to be phrased. At this stage there is no need for legislation, there is merely a need for understanding that the government's concern in respect of safety is foremost, but that we believe the people of Canada should understand that within the parameters of safety the issue is that of bilingualism and whether we believe in it in this country. That is the issue. That is why I say that, even after this strike hopefully is peacefully settled, the kind of misconception which is revealed in the ad to which the hon. member for Mississauga has referred, and the kind of misinformation that is being repeated over the airways, indicates that the issue is not the strike, but that the issue is national unity. I would hope that in this issue we have the support of every Canadian.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: The Prime Minister should know better; I am not proposing any discussion or any motion dealing with bilingualism in the House. What I proposed, and what I now ask the Prime Minister if he would consider in the light of my explanation, is that this House may be in receipt of a motion proposed by the government which would underwrite the government's guarantee that no steps and no action will be taken further with regard to bilingual control unless and until certain conditions have

been met and I have indicated those conditions. Let the House have the opportunity to underwrite the government's proposition in the terms of the motion as a means of trying to settle the present impasse.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I misunderstood the hon. member. I believed the hon. member had mentioned legislation. If he did not, I apologize. I thought in his earlier question he was talking about legislation. If he is referring to a motion, I would accept the suggestion, and ask the Minister of Transport perhaps to help draft a motion which, I hope, will get the unanimous consent of the House on Monday or Tuesday, if the problem is not solved before that. The motion would indicate that the House supports unequivocally the government's intention to apply its bilingual policy within any strictures required by safety regulations, or some other wording. I see the hon. member shake his head. It would indicate that safety must be first and foremost in flying passengers in this country and that it is within this first and foremost requirement that we would see how far we can go in implementing the bilingual policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Will the government consult members of this party and other parties in the House as to the terms of any such motion and discuss it with the other interested parties who have a considerable stake?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Transport is indicating his assent. Certainly, it would be our intention to have the minister or the House leader meet immediately, at one o'clock if possible, to draft the terms of a motion. If it can be adopted later in the day, that would indeed be very helpful. If not, we could do it for next week.



AIR CANADA


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Some years ago passes were issued to former prime ministers and their wives-not at my request nor, I think, at Mr. Pearson's request. Naturally, I am concerned over the revelations, to use the mildest term possible, as reported in the Toronto Sun of yesterday's date and the Globe and Mail of today, concerning promiscuity in the issuance of passes. In the absence of the minister concerned, who apparently admitted everything contained in the statements, I will ask just one question: Has there been any change made by Air Canada concerning qualifications on the part of spouses for passes, and why is it that a pass was issued to one described as a common law wife, an expression which of course is non-existent except in the vocabulary of certain people?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is accurate to say that that was the description used in the past. However, I will be glad to have a look at what is the current policy of Air Canada
June 25, 1976

with regard to passes and to report more fully on whether there have been any changes since the time the right hon. gentleman was prime minister.


John George Diefenbaker: Can the minister not say whether or not the rules that have applied through the years have been changed in order to meet the request of a minister?


Otto Emil Lang: I indicated that I do not know of any change of rules and I will be glad to determine whether or not the rules are the same. I thank the hon. member for repeating his question.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I know that he and all hon. members agree that there has to be a maximum of trust and good faith shown by both sides in order to resolve the present situation with air traffic controllers and the Department of Transport. Therefore, in order to obtain a greater degree of trust and good faith, can the minister tell us whether in fact pilots on instrument flights communicated in French in violation of the regulations at Dorval airport and, if that has occurred, have instructions been issued for it to cease?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question put by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre was answered by the minister.



ALLEGATION AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS DO NOT HAVE


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Transport in an attempt to find a way through the difficulty the minister will have this afternoon when he meets with the air traffic controllers. The argument put forward by the government a week ago was that a collective agreement is in existence and, as a consequence, air traffic controllers are in breach of it. The air traffic controllers are saying that the collective agreement was conditional upon or collateral to the arrangement to set up the commission and the acceptance of Mr. Keenan, and as a consequence they do not feel they are in breach of the total agreement they had with the government. In view of that, can the minister give consideration to instructing counsel for the government when the parties reconvene on Monday in such a way that the court could be made aware of the fact that the government also realizes that there was more to this deal than just the collective agreement? With respect, Mr. Speaker, may I say that this might go a long way toward assuaging feelings and finding a way through the difficulty.


Otto Emil Lang: These issues would be before the courts, as the hon. member has indicated, and therefore it would be wrong to argue them in any detail here. I have no doubt that my colleague, the Minister of Justice, will know what instructions to give
Ways and Means Motions
properly to counsel in this matter. I should point out to the hon. member, however, that the question of bilingual air traffic control is not a bargainable issue and was so found by the Public Service Staff Relations Board. Our willingness to continue discussing the possibility of a commission, and all the arrangements in relation to a commission, were in that sense not technically a requirement but something we did willingly and gladly to try to continue to improve the atmosphere. Of course, it was in that way that we followed up the withdrawal of Mr. Keenan by an indication immediately that we would search for appropriate other commissioners, and of course I have now done so and appointed them.


John Allen Fraser: I appreciate the minister's reply and I understand the legal issue clearly, I think, but my point is that no matter what the narrow legal issue may be-and I know what the judge found a week ago and as a consequence the government is moving on that narrow legal issue-the traffic controllers thought they had a bigger deal than that with the government. It is the feeling that this has been forgotten, that it is not agreed to by the government, and that somehow or other in their dealings with the government the government is taking a narrow position rather than a broader one. I entreat the minister to consider this very carefully this afternoon and over the weekend, because I think if a little flexibility were used here, we might be able to find a way to get everybody back to work.


Otto Emil Lang: I think to some extent we are infringing on matters before the courts and certainly also on matters which may be discussed a few minutes from now, and which I would not particularly want to discuss here. However, I think it should be clear that we made it known immediately that whatever feelings the controllers had toward the importance of the commission, we were fully in accord with the notion that a commission should go forward and that Mr. Keenan's withdrawal was not the basis for simply forgetting about the commission. We made that clear immediately, and therefore at all times we were, as much as we could be, in keeping with the obligations which we ourselves had assumed, but which were not a matter of legal obligation.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government House leader may I, on behalf of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), and in accordance with Standing Order 60, request Your Honour to designate the necessary orders of the day for consideration of the notices of ways and means tabled by the Minister of Finance at the time of his budget presentation.

June 25, 1976
Order Paper Questions QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
(Questions
asterisk.)
answered orally are indicated by an


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following 50 questions will be answered today: 4,460 to 4,472 inclusive, 4,827 to 4,840 inclusive, 5,262, 5,270, 5,283 to 5,289 inclusive, 5,371, 5,470, 5,484, 5,531, 5,532, 5,555, 5,556, 5,708, 5,734 and 5,738.


ESCAPES-DORCHESTER
Mr. MacKay: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of escapes at Dorchester Penitentiary and how many are still at large?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: 


ESCAPES-MONTGOMERY CENTRE
Mr. MacKay: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of escapes at Montgomery Centre and how many are still at large?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Escapes Walkaways Failure to return from Temporary Leave of Absence with escort without escort Total
At large (December 31, 1975): 1


ESCAPES-ST-HUBERT CENTRE
Mr. MacKay: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of escapes at St. Hubert Centre and how many are still at large?
1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975-	4	2	-	-	12	3	7	2	-	-2	7	9	2	-	11970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975	Escapes Walkaways	-	2 2	1	8	Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):	Failure to return from Temporary Leave of Absence	with escort	1	5	1	without escort	3	1	6	5	1	1970	1971	1972	1973	1974 1975Total	3	6	7	8	10	2	Escapes	2	-	-	At large (December 31, 1975): 2	Walkaways Failure to return from Temporary Leave of Absence	6	9	1	5	2 -with escort	-	-	without escort	4	8	7	2	1 -Total	12	17	8	7	3 -


ESCAPES-CARLTON CENTRE
Mr. MacKay: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of escapes at Carlton Centre and how many are still at large?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Insert Table 4461
At large (December 31, 1975): 3


ESCAPES-PARRTOWN CENTRE
Mr. MacKay: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of escapes at Parrtown Centre and how many are still at large?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Escapes Walkaways Failure to return from Temporary Leave of Absence with escort without escort
Total
At large (December 31, 1975): 1
1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975-	-	1	1	-	3
Escapes Walkaways Failure to return from Temporary Leave of Absence with escort without escort
Total
At large (December 31, 1975): Nil
1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	19753	-	-2	-	-5	-	-


ESCAPES-PORTSMOUTH CENTRE
Mr. MacKay: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of escapes at Portsmouth Centre and how many are still at large?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


ESCAPES-ONTARIO REGIONAL RECEPTION CENTRE
Mr. MacKay: 
ESCAPES-QUEBEC REGIONAL RECEPTION CENTRE
Mr. MacKay: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of escapes at Quebec Regional Reception Centre and how many are still at large?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1970	1971
Escapes	2	1Walkaways	-	-
Failure to return from Temporary Leave of Absence
with escort	-	1without escort	-	1Total	2	3
At large (December 31, 1975): Nil
1973	1974	1975


ESCAPES-LAVAL
Mr. MacKay: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of escapes at Laval and how many are still at large?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975Escapes	-	-	7	5	10	-Walkaways	-	-	-	-	-	-
Failure to return from Temporary Leave of Absence
with escort	-	-	-	-	-	-without escort	-	-	-	-	-	-Total	-	-	7	5	10	-
At large (December 31, 1975): 1


ESCAPES-ONTARIO PRISON FOR WOMEN
[Stage Direction]
Order Paper Questions
Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975
Escapes Walkaways Failure to return from Temporary Leave of Absence with escort without escort
Total	-	-	-	_	13
At large (December 31, 1975): 2


ESCAPES-SPRINGHILL
Mr. MacKay: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of escapes at Springhill and how many are still at large?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975Escapes	9	4	7	6	1	5Walkaways Failure to return from Temporary Leave of Absence	with escort	-	-	1	-	-	-without escort	1	4	10	2	4	7Total At large (December 31, 1975): 2	10	8	18	8	5	12


ESCAPES-WESTMORELAND
Mr. MacKay: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of escapes at Westmoreland and how many are still at large?

Question No, 4,469-Mr. MacKay:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of escapes at Ontario Prison for Women and how many are still at large?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975Escapes	-	-	2	6	-	-Walkaways Failure to return from Temporary Leave of Absence	1	1	with escort	-	-	-	-	1	-without escort	3	11	20	19	11	10Total At large (December 31, 1975): 17	4	11	23	25	12	10


ESCAPES-DUNGARVON
Mr. MacKay: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of escapes at Dungarvon and how many are still at large?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975Escapes	3	-	-	-	4	-Walkaways Failure to return from Temporary Leave of Absence	13	6	1	4	9	6with escort	-	-	-	-	-	-without escort	2	-	2	7	1	4Total At large (December 31, 1975): 1	18	6	3	11	14	10


ESCAPES-FERNDALE
Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of escapes at Ferndale and how many are still at large?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: June 25, 1976
Order Paper Questions
1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975Escapes	-	-	-	-	-	-Walkaways	-	-	-	-	-	-
Failure to return from Temporary Leave of Absence
without escort	-	-	-	-	-	-with escort	-	-	-	-	-	1Total	-	-	-	-	-	l
At large (December 31, 1975): 1


ESCAPES-WILLIAMS HEAD
Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of escapes at Williams Head and how many are still at large?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 


ESCAPES-MATSQUI
Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of escapes at Matsqui and how many are still at large?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975Escapes	3	-	2	3Walkaways Failure to return from	3	20	21	10	-	3Temporary Leave of Absence	with escort	-	-	-	-	3	3without escort	-	3	12	5	7	5Total	6	23	33	15	12	14
At large (December 31, 1975): 7
Escapes Walkaways Failure to return from Temporary Leave of Absence with escort without escort
Total
At large (December 31, 1975): 9
1970	1971	19728	13	141	3	512	24	3321	40	521973	1974	197512	2	61	1	113	6 2	126	11	8


ESCAPES-MOUNTAIN INSTITUTION
Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of escapes at Mountain Institution and how many are still at large?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975Escapes	6	11	17	7	5	4Walkaways Failure to return from Temporary Leave of Absence	1	1	2	2with escort	-	-	-	-	-	-without escort	4	16	15	8	10	5Total At large (December 31, 1975): 1	10	28	33	17	15	11


ESCAPES-BOWDEN
Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of escapes at Bowden and how many are still at large?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975Escapes	-	-	-	-	-	-Walkaways	-	-	-	-	-	l
Failure to return from Temporary Leave of Absence
with escort	-	-	-	-	-	1without escort	-	-	-	-	-	7Total	_____	9
At large (December 31, 1975): 1


ESCAPES-AGASSIZ CORRECTIONAL CAMP
Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of escapes at Agassiz Correctional Camp and how many are still at large?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975Escapes	4	_	Walkaways Failure to return from Temporary Leave of Absence	4	6	13	7	8	11with escort	-	-	-	1	-	1without escort	4	8	15	8	5	3Total At large (December 31, 1975): 7	12	14	28	16	13	15


ESCAPES-DRUMHELLER
Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of escapes at Drumheller and how many are still at large?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975Escapes	7	6	1	3	1Walkaways Failure to return from Temporary Leave of Absence	2	6	1	with escort	-	-	1	3without escort	2	16	10	13	10	10Total At large (December 31, 1975): 5	2	25	22	14	15	14

June 25, 1976


ESCAPES-BRITISH COLUMBIA PENITENTIARY
Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of escapes at British Columbia Penitentiary and how many are still at large?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975Escapes	3	-	2	5	3	1Walkaways Failure to return from Temporary Leave of Absence	2	1	with escort	-	1	-	-	-	without escort	1	1	1	Total At large (December 31, 1975): 1	6	2	3	6	3	1


ESCAPES-PANDORA CENTRE
Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of escapes at Pandora Centre and how many are still at large?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975
Escapes Walkaways Failure to return from Temporary Leave of Absence with escort without escort
Order Paper Questions


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975Escapes	-	-	-	-	-	-Walkaways	-	-	1	2	-	2Failure to return from Temporary Leave of Absence with escort	without escort	-	-	1	1	-	-Total	-	-	2	3	-	2
At large (December 31, 1975): 3


ESCAPES-ALTADORE CENTRE
Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of escapes at Altadore Centre and how many are still at large?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


ESCAPES-SCARBORO CENTRE
Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of escapes at Scarboro Centre and how many are still at large?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Total	-	-	-	-	3
At large (December 31, 1975): 2


ESCAPES-GRIERSON CENTRE
Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of escapes at Grierson Centre and how many are still at large?
1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975Escapes	-	-	-	-	-	-Walkaways	-	-	5	4	-	-Failure to return from	Temporary Leave of Absence	with escort	-	-	-	-	-	-without escort	-	-	-	6	-	-Total	-	-	5	10	-	-
At large (December 31, 1975): 1


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 


ESCAPES-BURRARD CENTRE
[Stage Direction]
Escapes	-
Walkaways	-
Failure to return from Temporary Leave of Absence
with escort	-
without escort	-
Total	-
At large (December 31, 1975): Nil
1971	1972	1973	1974	1975-	2	5	5	1-	5	6	3	-7	11	8	1

Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of escapes at Oskana Centre and how many are still at large?

Question No. 4,840-Mr. Reynolds:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of escapes at Burrard Centre and how many are still at large?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Escapes	-
Walkaways	-
Failure to return from Temporary Leave of Absence
with escort	-
without escort	-
Total	-
At large (December 31, 1975): 6
1971	1972	1973	1974	1975-	-	1	5	2-	1	-	-	-1	1	5	2
June 25, 1976
Order Paper Questions


RDIA OFFERS NOT ACCEPTED IN BRITISH COLUMBIA AND REST OF CANADA
Mr. Brisco: 1.	What was the number of RDIA net offers made and not accepted from 1969 to 1975 in (a) British Columbia (b) the rest of Canada for the (i) establishment of new industries (ii) expansion of existing industries?
2.	What were the total amounts in each case for the incentives offered but not accepted?


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: See table below.
Prime Minister and, if so, what are all the details in this regard including names of those on board exclusive of news media personnel?
3.	Is the Prime Minister giving consideration to changing his past procedure of travelling to Liberal Party functions at public expense and, if not, is he prepared to immediately give such reconsideration?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1. Yes. (a) Yes; (b) Ministry of Transport.
2.	(a) $357; (b) Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, Sacha Trudeau, Mary Macdonald, Administrative Assistant to the Prime Minister, Room 214, East Block; (c) Not applicable.
3.	See reply to question No. 2,333, part 3, answered October 14, 1975.
Regional Development Incentives Program Information as of September 30, 1975 for Offers Made Between April 1, 1969 and September 30, 1975 Which were Subsequently Declined or Lapsed
1. (a) In British Columbia
(i)	New Industries*
(ii)	Expansion of Existing Industries**
(b) Rest of Canada
(i)	New Industries*
(ii)	Expansion of Existing Industries**
Number of Offers	Estimated
Made which were	Amount of
Subsequently	Incentive Grants
Declined,	Offered
or Lapsed	
15	$ 4,038,853
2	303,600
17	$ 4,342,453
376	96,683,949
143	13,265,939
519	$109,949,888
* New industries include the following categories: (a) new facility (b) new product expansion (c) expansion and new facility (d) expansion and new product expansion (e) modernization and new facility (f) modernization and new product expansion (g) new facility and new product expansion (h) expansion, modernization, new facility (i) modernization, new facility, new product expansion (j) expansion, new facility, new product expansion (k) expansion, modernization, new product expansion (1) expansion, modernization, new facility, new product expansion.
** Expansion of existing industries includes the following categories: (a) expansion (b) modernization and (c) expansion and modernization.


PRIME MINISTER'S TRIP APRIL 10, 1976
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Prime Minister attend an event sponsored by the Mount Royal Liberal Association on April 10, 1976 and, if so (a) did he travel by helicopter to and from Ottawa (b) who owned and who paid for the use of the helicopter?
2.	If the helicopter was government owned (a) what was the entire cost to the taxpayer including all flying time and waiting time (b) what are the names and addresses of all persons who travelled in the Prime Minister's party (c) were any other helicopters used to accompany the


COMMUNITY SERVICES PROGRAM
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion committed itself to the Community Services Programme (Program 2) and, if so, in what amount?
2.	(a) How much is allocated to Project 1, Community Water Supply and Sewage Disposal (b) how many Indian or Metis people are involved and what is the allocation of funds to each group (c) how many departmental or resource people are involved and what is the cost of their services?
3.	How much is allocated to Project 2, Multi-Purpose Community Facilities, for (a) Sub-project 1, Fire Halls (b) Sub-project 2, Town Halls (c) Sub-project 3, Community Halls (d) Sub-project 4, Municipal Buildings (e) Sub-project 5, Streets (f) Sub-project 6, Gymnasiums (g) Sub-project 7, Educational Facilities (h) Sub-project 8, Potato Lake Probationary Hostel (i) Sub-project 9, Group Home for Boys-Beauval (j) Sub-project 10, Creighton-Home for Girls (k) Sub-project 11, Pine-house Health Centre (1) Sub-project 12, Dental Clinics and, in each case, how many (i) Indian or Metis people are involved and what is the allocation of funds to each group (ii) departmental or resource people are involved and what is the cost of their services?
4.	How much is allocated to Project 3, Community Planning, for (a) Sub-project 1, Housing Needs Survey (b) Sub-project 2, Terrain Analysis and Photogrammetric Contour Mapping (c) Sub-project 3, Legal surveys and, in each case, how many (i) Indian or Metis people are involved and what is the allocation of funds to each group (ii) departmental or resource people are involved and what is the cost of their services?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows:
1.	Yes. The Canada-Saskatchewan Interim Subsidiary Agreement on the Saskatchewan Northlands allocates $7,320,000 to the program.
2.	(a) As of March 31, 1976, $4,861,680 in DREE funds have been authorized; (b) A number of northern communities with a total population of approximately 9,000 will be served by the program. A high percentage of the population is made up of people of native ancestry. Priority is also given to the employment of northern people in the construction of individual sub-projects. Funds are not specifically allocated to people of native ancestry; (c) See reply to question No. 5,282, 2(a)(ii).
3.	(a) As of March 31, 1976, $59,355 in DREE funds have been authorized. Two northern communities, Buffalo Narrows and Green Lake, with a total population of approximately 1,700 will be served by the sub-project; (b) As of March 31, 1976, $18,312 in DREE funds have been authorized. The community of Cumberland House, with an approximate population of 938 will be served by the sub-
June 25, 1976

project; (c) As of March 31, 1976, $51,374 in DREE funds have been authorized. The communities of Deschambault, Sandy Bay, and Sturgeon Landing, with a total approximate population of 1,150 will be served by the sub-project;
(d)	As of March 31, 1976, $23,760 in DREE funds have been authorized. The community of Turnor Lake, with an approximate population of 316 will be served by the subproject; (e) As of March 31, 1976, $85,418 in DREE funds have been authorized. Twelve northern communities, with a total population of approximately 5,300 will be served by the sub-project; (f) As of March 31, 1976, $961,207 in DREE funds have been authorized. The communities of Beauval, La Loche and Green Lake with a total population of approximately 2,782 will be served by the sub-projects; (g) As of March 31, 1976, $204,463 in DREE funds have been authorized. The communities of Pinehouse and Wollaston Lake with a total population of 863 will be served by the sub-projects; (h) As of March 31, 1976, $84,224 in DREE funds have been authorized. The sub-project, located adjacent to the community of La Ronge, is intended to serve the eastern side of the Northern Administration District;
(i)	As of March 31, 1976, $3,960 in DREE funds have been authorized. The sub-project is located in the community of Beauval but intended to serve the entire population of northern Saskatchewan; (j) As of March 31, 1976, $2,680 in DREE funds have been authorized. Located in the community of Creighton, the sub-project is intended to serve the people of northern Saskatchewan; (k) As of March 31, 1976, $6,600 in DREE funds have been authorized. The sub-project will serve the community of Pinehouse which has a population of approximately 512; (1) As of March 31, 1976, $78,000 in DREE funds have been authorized; (i) In (a),
(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k) and (1), priority is given to the employment of northern people in the construction phase of individual structures. Precise figures relating to the employment of people of native ancestry are not available. No specific allocation of DREE funds to each group is made; (ii) See response to question No. 5,282, 2(a) (ii).
4.	(a) As of March 31, 1976, $18,000 in DREE funds have been authorized; (i) The sub-project is being carried out by the Northern Municipal Council under contract to the department of northern Saskatchewan; (b) As of March 31, 1976, $16,200 in DREE funds have been authorized; (i) The sub-project is being carried out by staff of or consultants under contract to the department of northern Saskatchewan; (c) As of March 31, 1976, $21,060 in DREE funds have been authorized; (i) The sub-project is being carried out by staff of or consultants under contract to the department of northern Saskatchewan; (ii) In (a), (b), and (c)(ii) above, see response to question No. 5,282, 2(a)(ii).


INDIAN RESERVE PROJECTS (PROGRAM 3)
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion committed itself to the Indian Reserve Projects (Program 3) and, if so, in what amount?
2.	How much is allocated to (a) Project 1, Community Water Supply and Sewage Disposal (b) Project 2, Multi-Purpose Community Facilities (c) Project 3, On-Reserve Transportation Facilities and, in each case, how many (i) Indian or Metis people are involved and what is the allocation of funds to each group (ii) departmental or resource people are involved and what is the cost of their services?
Order Paper Questions


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows.
1.	Yes. The Canada-Saskatchewan Interim Subsidiary Agreement on the Saskatchewan Northlands allocates $5 million to the program. Approximately $3 million of this amount is allocated from DREE funds, with the remainder being committed by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
2.	(a) As of March 31, 1976, the following funds have been allocated to the projects. All funds to date have been contributed by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, (a) $135,000; (b) $171,000; (c) $87,000; (i) The projects are directed at assisting treaty Indians in northern Saskatchewan. The allocation of funds is 100 per cent to treaty Indians; (ii) see reply to question No. 5,282, 2(a)(ii)


RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (PROGRAM 1)
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion committed itself to the Resource Development Programme (Program 1) and, if so, in what amount?
2.	(a) How much is allocated to Project 1, Resource Development Planning (b) how many Indian or Metis people are involved and what is the allocation of funds to each group (c) how many departmental or resource people are involved and what is the cost of their services?
3.	How much is allocated to Project 2, Tourist and Recreation Facilities, for (a) Sub-project 1, Campground construction improvement and relocation (b) Sub-project 2, Tourist, recreation and resource access roads (c) Sub-project 3, Legal surveys-recreation sub-division (d) Sub-project 4, boat launches (f) Sub-project 6, Wells at tourist and recreation sites (g) Sub-project 7, Septic tank pumpouts at tourist and recreation sites (h) Sub-project 8, Nuisance grounds at tourist and recreation sites and, in each case, how many (i) Indian or Metis people are involved and what is the allocation of funds to each group (ii) departmental or resource people are involved and what is the cost of their services?
4.	(a) How much is allocated to Project 3, Fisheries Sector development (b) how many Indian or Metis people are involved and what is the allocation of funds to each group (c) how many departmental or resource people are involved and what is the cost of their services?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows.
1.	Yes. The Canada-Saskatchewan Subsidiary Agreement on the Saskatchewan Northlands allocates $1,422,000 in DREE funding to the program.
2.	(a) As of March 31, 1976, $328,208 in DREE funds have been authorized; (b) The work is being carried out by consultants under contract to the department of northern Saskatchewan. The project will assist all the people of northern Saskatchewan. Specific allocation of DREE funds to each group is not made; (c) see reply to question No. 5,282, 2(a)(ii)
3.	(a) As of March 31, 1976, $133,846 in DREE funds have been authorized; (i) The numbers of people of native ancestry directly employed is not available. The results of the sub-project are expected to benefit all northern people. Specific allocation of DREE funds to each group is not made; (b) As of March 31, 1976, $154,500 in DREE funds have been authorized; (i) The numbers of people of native ancestry directly employed is not available. The results of the sub-project are expected to benefit all northern people.

June 25, 1976
Order Paper Questions
Specific allocation of DREE funds to each group is not made; (ii) see reply to question No. 5,282, 2(a)(ii); (c) As of March 31, 1976, $23,700 in DREE funds have been authorized; i) The numbers of people of native ancestry directly employed is not available. The results of the sub-project are expected to benefit all northern people. Specific allocation of DREE funds to each group is not made; (ii) see reply to question No. 5,282, 2(a)(ii); (d) As of March 31, 1976, $36,000 in DREE funds have been authorized; (i) The numbers of people of native ancestry directly employed is not available. The results of the sub-project are expected to benefit all northern people. Specific allocation of DREE funds to each group is not made; (ii) see response to question 5,282, 2(a)(ii); (e) As of March 31, 1976, $12,900 in DREE funds have been authorized; (i) The numbers of people of native ancestry directly employed is not available. The results of the sub-project are expected to benefit all northern people. Specific allocation of DREE funds to each group is not made; (ii) see reply to question No. 5,282, 2(a)(ii); (f) As of March 31, 1976, $35,369 in DREE funds have been authorized; (i) The numbers of people of native ancestry directly employed is not available. The results of the sub-project are expected to benefit all northern people. Specific allocation of DREE funds to each group is not made; (ii) see reply to question No. 5,282, 2(a)(ii); (g) As of March 31, 1976, $14,000 in DREE funds have been authorized; (i) The numbers of people of native ancestry directly employed is not available. The results of the sub-project are expected to benefit all northern people. Specific allocation of DREE funds to each group is not made; (ii) see response to question No. 5,282, 2(a)(ii); (h) As of March 31, 1976, $12,000 in DREE funds have been authorized; (i) The numbers of people of native ancestry directly employed is not available. The results of the sub-project are expected to benefit all northern people. Specific allocation of DREE funds to each group is not made; (ii) see reply to question No. 5,282, 2 (a) (ii).
4.	(a) As of March 31, 1976, $603,390 in DREE funds have been authorized; (b) Over 20 people of native ancestry are employed directly year-round in the project with approximately 15 more employed in summer months. The project is aimed at assisting over 700 northern fishermen, of whom approximately 95 per cent are people of native ancestry. Specific DREE funds have not been allocated to each group; (i) see reply to question No. 5,282, 2(a) (ii).


COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (PROGRAM 2)
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion committed itself to the Community Economic Development Programme (Program 2) and, if so, in what amount?
2.	How much is allocated to Project 1, Economic Development Planning and Feasibility Studies, for (a) Sub-project 1, Development Unit- Economic Development Branch (b) Sub-project 2, Green Lake Socioeconomic Study and, in each case, how many (i) Indian or Metis people are involved and what is the allocation of funds to each group (ii) departmental or resource people are involved and what is the cost of their services?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows:

1.	Yes. The Canada-Saskatchewan Interim Subsidiary Agreement on the Saskatchewan Northlands allocates $198,000 in DREE funding to the program. The program complements the Canada-Saskatchewan Special ARDA Program.
2.	(a) As of March 31, 1976, $39,000 in DREE funds have been authorized; (i) The Development Unit-Economic Development Branch is an office of the provincial department of northern Saskatchewan. DREE funds are not specifically allocated to each group; (ii) See reply to question No. 5,282, 2(a)(ii); (b) As of March 31, 1976, $22,200 in DREE funds have been authorized; (i) The Green Lake Socio Economic Study is being carried out by Amisk Planning Consultants of Winnipeg, under contract to the provincial department of northern Saskatchewan. Local people of native ancestry are being employed to gather information for the study. The total population of Green Lake is 675. DREE funds are not specifically allocated to each group;
(ii)	See response to question No. 5,282, 2(a)(ii).


TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROGRAM (PROGRAM 1)
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion committed itself to the Transportation Planning Programme (Program 1) and, if so, in what amount?
2.	How much is allocated to Project 1, Transportation Planning, for
(a)	Sub-project 1, East Side Transportation Study (b) Sub-project 2, Southern Overland Access Study and, in each case, how many (i) Indian or Metis people are involved and what is the allocation of funds to each group (ii) departmental or resource people are involved and what is the cost of their services?
3.	How much is allocated to (a) Project 2, Highways (b) Project 3, Community Access Roads (c) Project 4, Community Airstrips and, in each case, how many (i) Indian or Metis people are involved and what is the allocation of funds to each group (ii) departmental or resource people are involved and what is the cost of their services?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows:
1.	Yes. The Canada-Saskatchewan Interim Subsidiary Agreement on the Saskatchewan Northlands allocates $9,300,000 in DREE funding to the Program. An additional $7,500,000 has been allocated by Transport Canada.
2.	(a) As of March 31, 1976, $12,000 in DREE funds have been authorized; (i) A consulting firm, Clayton, Sparks and Associates of Regina is carrying out the study, under contract to the provincial department of northern Saskatchewan. No specific allocation of DREE funds to each group has been made; (ii) See reply to question No. 5,282, 2(a)(ii); (b) As of March 31, 1976, $6,000 in DREE funds have been authorized for the Southend Overland Access Study; (i) The work has been carried out by a consultant under contract to the provincial department of northern Saskatchewan. No specific allocation of funds to each group has been made; (ii) see reply to question No. 5,282, 2(a) (ii).
3.	(a) As of March 31, 1976, $5,969,310 in DREE funds have been authorized; (i) The direct involvement of people of native ancestry through employment in the sub-project is not available. Priority is given to the employment of northern residents in the work. Funds are not specifically allocated to each group; (ii) See reply to question No. 5,282,

2(a)(ii); (b) As of March 31, 1976, $2,088,030 in DREE funds have been allocated; (i) The construction of five general access roads to the northern communities of Pinehouse, Sandy Bay, Stanley Mission, Patuanak and Black Lake involves work forces composed primarily of people of native ancestry. In addition, the roads will service communities composed largely of native people with a total population of over 3,000. No specific allocation of DREE funds to each group has been made; (ii) See reply to question No. 5,282, 2(a)(ii); (c) As of March 31, 1976, $646,800 in DREE funds have been authorized; (i) The construction of community airstrips in the northern communities of ile-a-la-Crosse, Pinehouse, La Loche, Buffalo Narrows, Cumberland House, involves work forces composed primarily of people of native ancestry. In addition, the airstrips will service communities composed largely of native people with a total population of over 5,000; (ii) See reply to question No. 5,282, 2(a)(ii).


COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (PROGRAM 2)
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion committed itself to the Communications Development Programme (Program 2) and, if so, in what amount?
2.	How many (a) Indian or Metis people are involved and what is the allocation of funds to each group (b) departmental or resource people are involved and what is the cost of their services?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows:
1.	Yes. The Canada-Saskatchewan Interim Subsidiary Agreement on the Saskatchewan Northlands allocates $1,200,000 in DREE funding to the program.
2.	(a) As of March 31, 1976, no projects have been authorized under the program, (b) see reply to question No. 5,282, 2(a) (ii).


COORDINATION AND IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM (PROGRAM 1)
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion committed itself to the Co-ordination and Implementation Programme (Program I) and, if so, in what amount?
2.	How much is allocated to (a) Project 1, Administration (b) Project 2, Management Information System and, in each case, how many (i) Indian or Metis people are involved and what is the allocation of funds to each group (ii) departmental or resource people are involved and what is the cost of their services?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows:
1.	Yes. The Canada-Saskatchewan Interim Subsidiary Agreement allocates $960,000 in DREE funding to the program.
2.	(a) As of March 31, 1976, $240,420 in DREE funds have been authorized. The administration project is a unit of the provincial department of northern Saskatchewan. No allocation of DREE funds to each group is made, (i) see reply to question No. 5,282, 2(a)(ii); (b) As of March 31, 1976, $463,200 in DREE funds have been authorized, (i) The
Order Paper Questions
work is being carried out by consultants under contract to the provincial department of northern Saskatchewan. The number of native people directly employed is not available; (ii) see reply to question No. 5,282, 2(a)(ii).


CNR TURBO TRAIN POSITIONS
Mr. Halliday: On the regular CNR "Turbo" train between Montreal and Toronto (a) what is the number and title of all positions (i.e. conductor, engineer, etc.) on each train (b) what is the minimum and maximum salary for each (c) what is the number of hours worked per week by each?


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows:
	Number of employees	
	Train Nos.	Train Nos.
(a)	60-61	66-67Enginemen	2	2Conductors	1	1Brakemen	1	1Flagmen	1	1Trainrider	1	1Steward-Waiter	2	6Take-out Attendant	1	2Cart Attendant	1	2(b)	Enginemen and trainmen are paid on a mileage rate rather than hourly or weekly rates, and it is not the company's practice to disclose information respecting employees' salaries, (c) Enginemen, estimated 21 hours; Conductors, estimated 26 hours; Brakemen, estimated 26 hours; Flagmen, estimated 26 hours; Trainrider, estimated 3314 hours; Steward-Waiter, estimated 30-40 hours; Takeout Attendant, estimated 33-38 hours; Cart Attendant, estimated 31-35 hours.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Does the Post Office Department publish a publication called Postal Progress and, if so (a) how many copies are printed per issue (b) how frequently is it issued (c) what is the cost per issue (d) who prints it (e) was the printing contract awarded by tender (f) who is the editor and how many staff does he have (g) to whom is it distributed?
2.	How many requests have been received asking (a) to be kept on the mailing list (b) that it be discontinued?


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: 1. Yes. (a) 10,000; (b) Quarterly; (c) Average cost of printing an issue, $3,583; (d) Marketing Communications, Toronto; (e) Yes; (f) Manager, Promotion Division-No staff, prepares it himself, (g) Executives of Large Volume Mailers.
2.	(a) 5,425; (b) 22.


COMPENSATION-BUTTER SPOILAGE
Mr. Stevens: 1.	For each year (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 to date, what was the total number of requests for compensation filed with the Canadian Dairy
14850

June 25, 1976
Order Paper Questions
Commission on account of mouldy, rancid or tainted butter which had been sold by the Commission to their customers?
2.	Of the requests received (a) what was the total number in which compensation was paid (b) what, in each year, was the total amount of the compensation (c) how many pounds of butter were involved?
3.	To the knowledge of the government, was any of the butter upon which compensation was paid, eventually sold to the public and, if so, how was it graded?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. (a)
Fifteen; (b) Two; (c) Two.
2.	(a) Nineteen requests for compensation for mouldy butter were paid; (b) 1974; $9,130.80; 1975: $3,850.00; 1976: $3,114.44; (c) 321,905 pounds.
3.	Butter upon which compensation is paid is first examined by a government inspector to verify the seriousness of the complaint, and secondly, it is kept under control until corrective action is taken. The corrective action in the case of mouldy butter involved removing the mould and re-pas-turizing or re-processing. It is then re-graded and sold to the public with the appropriate grade certification.


MILK POWDER IN STORAGE
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	How many pounds of domestic skim milk powder were in storage at the end of March 1976?
2.	In what locations is the powder stored and what are the names of companies providing the storage?
3.	What are the (a) costs of storage (b) interest costs on a monthly basis?
4.	What is the value of stocks held as of March 31, 1976?


Eugene Whelan: 1. Stocks of skim milk powder held by the Canadian Dairy Commission, not including stocks held by the private trade, at March 31, 1976, were 282.5 million pounds.
2. Locations of powder storage and names of companies providing storage: Quebec; SLW Distribution, Lachine; Coop Federee de Quebec, Montreal; Eastern Packaging Corp., Montreal; Montreal Refrigerating, Montreal; Seaway Midwest Inc., Montreal; Blaicklock Bros., Lachine; Coop Agricole de Granby, Lawrenceville; Coop Agricole de Granby, Plessisville; Lactantia Ltee, Victoriaville; Ver-mette & Fils Ltee, St. Agapit; Schenker of Canada Ltd., La Salle; National Warehouses, Montreal; Fleur de Lys Warehouses, Montreal; Supply & Services, Montreal; Coop Agricole de Granby, Louiseville; Lebourg Warehouses, Ville St. Laurent, St. Patrick Warehouse, Montreal; Placements des Bois Francs, Victoriaville; Quebec Lait, St. Lambert. Ontario: N.W. Distribution, Toronto; Schenker of Canada Ltd., Mississauga; Central Warehouse, Toronto; Intercontinental Whse., Rexdale; J.D. Smith, Downsview; Toronto Harbour Commissioners, Toronto; Seaway Midwest, Toronto; Ault Foods Ltd., Winchester; Manitoba: MacCosham Warehouse, Winnipeg; Seaway Midwest, Winnipeg. Alberta: Seaway Midwest, Edmonton; Canada Messenger, Edmonton; MacCosham Warehouse, Edmonton; MacCosham, Calgary. Maritimes: Maritime Warehouse, Nova Scotia; McQuaids, P.E.I. Saskatchewan: Dairy Producers Coop, Regina; Dairy Producers Coop, Yorkton; MacCosham Warehouse, Saskatoon. British Columbia: Fraser Valley Milk Produce, Vancouver.
3.	(a) Cost of storage on a monthly basis. The Commission's cost of storage for each month of the dairy year 1975-76 (not including one time costs such as in-and-out charges, transportation charges and related costs) were: April, $107,551.79; May, $159,682.80; June, $141,036.44; July, $222,548.61; August, $203,919.80; September, $415,223.73; October, $133,183.60; November, $319,758.68; December, $509,240.33; January, $534,995.21; February, $378,916.11; March, $404,197.17; Total: $3,530,254.27; (b) Cost of interest on a monthly basis: The commission's costs of interest are not separately available for skim milk powder and butter. The total of interest costs for both products in 1975-76 was $8,717,133.17. This total comprises the actual monthly interest payments made to the Minister of Finance upon repayment of loans, total $3,389,152.51, and interest accrued at year-end in respect of outstanding loans for a total of $5,327,980.66.
4.	Value of Canadian Dairy Commission's stocks at cost held at March 31, 1976, was $177,237,170.00.


BUTTER IN STORAGE
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	How many pounds of butter were in storage at the end of March 1976?
2.	In what locations is the butter stored and what are the names of companies providing the storage?
3.	What are the (a) costs of storage (b) interest costs on a monthly basis?
4.	What is the value of stocks held as of March 31, 1976?


Eugene Whelan: 1. Stocks of creamery butter held by the Canadian Dairy Commission, not including stocks held by the private trade, at March 31, 1976, were 42.2 million pounds.
2.	Locations where butter is stored and names of companies providing storage: Quebec: Coop Agricole de Granby, Lawrenceville; Coop Agricole de Granby, Granby; Coop Agricole de Granby, Plessisville; Coop Agricole de Granby, Weedon; Granby Locker, Granby; Frigorifique Quebec, Lachine; Canada Packers Ltd., Montreal; Jersey Brand, Montreal; Olive & Dorion, Montreal; Montreal Refrigerating & Cold Storage, Montreal; Lansdowne Storage, Sherbrooke; Vermette & Fils Ltee, St. Agapit; Associated Freezers, Montreal; Beaudoin & Marcoux, Sherbrooke; Quebec Apple Growers, Farnham; Lovell & Christmas, Montreal; Entrepot Igloo Ltee, Quebec; Thompson & Alix, Sherbrooke; Produits Laitiers, St. Hyacinthe. Ontario: Teeswa-ter Creamery, Teeswater; Toronto Harbour Commissioners; Stacey Brothers, Mitchell. Manitoba: Diamond Cold Storage, Winnipeg; Winnipeg Cold Storage, Winnipeg. USA: Harbour Side Terminal, Management-New Jersey.
3.	(a) Cost of storage on a monthly basis. The commission's cost of storage for each month of the dairy year 1975-76 (not including one time costs such as in-and-out charges, transportation charges and related costs) were: April, $51,540.46; May, $40,899.88; June, $42,106.57; July, $119,411.40; August, $202,343.96; September, $142,675.80; October, $194,360.00; November, $176,183.32; December, $278,165.42; January, $296,835.58; February, $202,525.75; March, $153,935.93. Total: $1,900,984.07; (b) Cost of interest on a monthly basis. The commission's costs of interest are not separately available for skim milk powder and butter.

June 25, 1976

The total of interest costs for both products in 1975-76 was $8,717,133.17. This total comprises the actual monthly interest payments made to the Minister of Finance upon repayment of loans total $3,389,152.51, and interest accrued at year-end in respect of outstanding loans, for a total of $5,327,980.66.
4.	Value of Canadian Dairy Commission's stocks at cost held at March 31, 1976, was $43,654,651.00.


VEHICLE ALLOWANCE FOR CABINET MEMBERS
Mr. Cossitt: What was the total amount of taxpayer money paid to all Ministers for automobile allowances since April 20, 1968 and does the government plan to eliminate such payments in the interest of cutting expenditures?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: See reply to question No. 4,126, Hansard 321, page 14415, dated June 11, 1976.
Order Paper Questions


Eugene Whelan: (a) See
answer to Question No. 5,532, part 4; (b) See answer to Question No. 5,531, part 4.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION-COST OF ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Alexander: What was the (a) estimated (b) actual cost of administration under the Unemployment Insurance Act for (i) 1974 (ii) 1975 (iii) 1976 to date?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned:
1975
Year-to-date May, 1976
Estimated

Actual


$162,942,320 191,890,289 82,355,700 PRIME MINISTER-CAR ALLOWANCE
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Does the Prime Minister receive an annual car allowance and, if so
(a)	what is the amount per year (b) what is the total amount he has received since April 20, 1968 (c) what are the reasons justifying the payment when the Prime Minister travels in government owned automobiles?
2.	Has the Prime Minister ever returned, or offered to return, any of this money to the Treasury and (a) if so, on what date and how much
(b)	if not, will he make such a return?
3.	In the interest of restraint, will the Prime Minister refuse to accept this allowance in future and, if not, for what reason?


Mitchell William Sharp: See reply to Question No. 4,126, Hansard No. 321, page 14415, dated June 11, 1976.


FARM IMPROVEMENT LOANS PROGRAM-RIMOUSKI
Mr. Allard: 1.	Since the introduction of the Farm Improvement Loans Programme, what was the total amount of subsidies granted to farmers in the Constituency of Rimouski?
2.	How many farmers (a) applied for (b) were granted such a loan and, in each case, where is their residence located?
3.	For each loan granted, what was the (a) name of the lending institution (b) repayment period (c) average rate of reimbursement?


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: Statistics concerning the F.I.L. Programme are not maintained on a constituency basis. Under the terms of the programme loans are made at the discretion of approved lending institutions who are responsible for the administration of individual loans.


VALUE OF BUTTER AND SKIM MILK POWDER STOCKS
Mr. Mazankowski: What is the total value of stocks based on the cost of the Canadian Dairy Commission for (a) butter (b) skim milk powder, as of March 31, 1976?


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 5,328 and 5,403 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.


HUMAN DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (PROGRAM 1)
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion committed itself to the Human Development Programme (Program 1) and, if so, in what amount?
2.	How much is allocated to Project 1, Options North, for (a) Sub-project 1, Manpower Planning (b) Sub-project 2, Northern Careers Plan
(c)	Sub-project 3, Training in Government for (e) Sub-project 5, Community College Developers and, in each case, how many (i) Indian or Metis people are involved and what is the allocation of funds to each group (ii) departmental or resource people are involved and what is the cost of their services?
3.	(a) How much is allocated to Project 2, Public Information and Extension Services for Sub-project 1, Regional Communication Centre (b) how many Indian or Metis people are involved and what is the allocation of funds to each group (c) how many departmental or resource people are involved and what is the cost of their services?
4.	How much is allocated to Project 3, Human Development Planning and Pilot Action, for (a) Sub-project 1, Community Correction Officer (b) Sub-project 2, Ethnohistorian and Instructional Services Consultant (c) Sub-project 3, Nutrition Study (d) Sub-project 4, Health Services Planning-Health Education Programme (e) Sub-project 5, Trapper Training Development Programme (f) Sub-project 6, Work Training Centres (g) Sub-project 7, Services to the Elderly and, in each case, how many (i) Indian or Metis people are involved and what is the allocation of funds to each group (b) departmental or resource people are involved and what is the cost of their services?
95570-39)4

June 25, 1976
Order Paper Questions
Return tabled.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD
Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	For each year 1970 to date, how much has the government granted under the Regional Development Incentives Act to the Constituencies of (a) Temiscamingue (b) Abitibi (c) Villeneuve?
2.	In each case, what was the (a) location (b) purpose of the grant (c) amount granted (d) year it was granted?
Return tabled.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	How many Unemployment Insurance offices are there in Canada and where is each located?
2.	How many agents of the Commission are working in each office?
3.	From 1970 to 1975, how much was spent annually for the professional development of the agents in each office?
Return tabled.


STARRED QUESTION
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred Question No. 5,724?


TREASURY BOARD
Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What members of the Cabinet were on the Treasury Board on December 2, 1975?
2.	Was the financing of the Lockheed (LRPA) deal discussed at the Treasury Board meeting of December 2, 1975 and, if so, what members of the Cabinet were present?


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: 1. The President of the Treasury Board, The Minister of Finance, The Honourable Charles Mills Drury, The Honourable Stanley Ronald Basford, The Honourable Jean-Pierre Goyer, The Honourable Daniel Joseph MacDonald. Alternates: The Honourable W. Warren Allmand, The Honourable Andre Ouellet, The Honourable Barnett Jerome Danson, The Honourable J. Judd Buchanan, The Honourable Romeo LeBlanc.
2.	The inner workings of cabinet, cabinet committees, and the services rendered by support staff are traditionally considered confidential matters. Canadian precedents in this regard flowed from British practice over many years. In response to a question in the House the Canadian Prime Minister of the day on 4 February 1960 in part replied:- "The means by which the cabinet conducts its business are traditionally regarded as its own domestic affair, and questions on the subject are normally neither asked nor answered."
A detailed answer to the question would be a departure from the traditional position that has always been taken

that meetings of the cabinet and of cabinet committees are private and no information is given concerning attendance.
I should simply like to indicate that-

It is evident, from the number of questions we are answering so late in the session, that our office is making its best efforts to be able to clear the order paper of all questions which have been inscribed thereon.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, June 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-68, to amend the Medical Care Act, be read the third time and do pass.
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in the third reading debate on Bill C-68. I want to comment on some of the remarks made the other evening by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco). I am afraid he got his facts wrong, and I know he would not want incorrect facts to remain on the record of this House. I want to point out, first, that in this federal-provincial cost-sharing relationship the situation is that there are three main programs which the federal government cost-shares with the provinces, namely, medical care, which was started in 1968; hospital insurance, which started in 1958; and the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, part VI, post-secondary education program, started in 1967. In the current fiscal year federal payments under these programs will be in excess of $5 billion. That represents 40 per cent to 45 per cent of all federal cash payments to the provinces. Most provisions of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act expire on March 31, 1977, and the hospital service provisions expire in 1980.
The federal government is currently proposing that it replaces the current cost-sharing agreements. That is essentially the same as the proposal the federal government made in 1973 which was rejected by the provinces as being unfair to the have-not provinces. The federal government proposes that federal contributions to health care and post-secondary education should begin at about the present level and rise at a rate similar to the rate of increase in the gross national product; that federal contributions should rise independent of provincial expenditures; that the provinces should receive, after some kind of transitional period of indeterminate length, equal amounts in per capita terms; and that there should be three years' notice of any intention on the part of the federal govern-
June 25, 1976

ment to withdraw, instead of the present five years' notice which is required for hospital insurance changes.
This proposal would come into effect in 1977 for postsecondary education, and in 1981 or 1982 for health care. The federal government proposes that federal contributions be made up in two parts: one would be cash payments based on an unknown base year and rising at the same rate as the GNP. There would be tax room: Tax points would be transferred to the provinces and equalized to the national average of revenue yielded from that number of points by the use of transitional payments. Tax room would probably grow at a faster rate than the gross national product, according to the federal government.
The provinces reacted to these proposals and they certainly were not enthusiastic. A number of questions have to be answered before the provinces can reply rationally to the proposals. What base year is to be used? What escalation factor is to be used? What proportion of payments will be in the form of cash grants, and what proportion in tax room? How can the federal government guarantee equal per capita contributions to the provinces, given the wide discrepancies in the tax base of have and have-not provinces? What amount of money is the federal government prepared to add to existing medical care cost-sharing? There has been a vague mention of $200 million over the next five years. If that is so, what services will this cover?
If the federal government, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) would answer those questions, the provinces could then more rationally assess the government's proposals in terms of their own situation and the government might stand some chance of getting a more enthusiastic response from the provinces. Manitoba, Saskatchewan and, formerly, British Columbia are not in favour of transferring tax points, particularly if revenues are equalized only to the national average as opposed to the average of the two or three richest provinces, as this would reduce federal contributions. In fact, Manitoba has calculated that if federal contributions to post-secondary education and health care had been tied to the gross national product for the past three years, the ten provinces would have received $800 million less than under current arrangements.
One has to be suspicious of any guarantees that the federal government promises. It should be remembered that the federal government is currently reneging on $800 million to $900 million of the revenue guarantee promised at the time of tax reform in 1972. What good is a federal guarantee that the provinces will not lose under the transference of tax room?
Even if it were possible to equalize per capita contributions to the provinces, would that be appropriate? Cost may be higher in some provinces because of any number of factors. A widely dispersed northern population, for example, could mean a great difference in the costs of one province compared to another. What could happen to national standards if all provinces received the same per capita funds? What possible correspondence can there be between an increase in health expenditures and the rise in the gross national product? Manitoba has taken the posi-
MecLical Care Act
tion that we do not spend nearly enough on health care, that there are many health care services which we should be providing. If the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) is serious about preventative medicine, as was espoused in the 1974 white paper on health care, he should be expanding federal contributions, not limiting them.
I do not think we should be impressed by the guarantees of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) at the first ministers' meetings that federal contributions to health care after 1981-82 would represent the same proportion of the total gross national product as at the moment.
In 1973, Canada spent 6.9 per cent of the gross national product on health care. Frankly, that is not enough. It is not something the Canadian government can be proud of.
I think the federal government's sharing of revenues with the provinces is now being put in the form of a federal squeeze. Since the budget of June last year, the government has been putting ceilings on federal contributions to cost-shared programs as part of the restraint program, and forcing provincial governments to pick up more and more of the costs of programs. The attack started prior to the last budget. In 1972, under tax reform-which were just tax changes-the provincial share was reduced from 28 per cent to 23.4 per cent. To make up the revenue guarantee, a formula was drawn up to protect provincial tax revenues for the five-year period 1972-77.
At the most recent finance ministers' conference on April 1 and 2, the federal government announced it was changing this formula. They predicted a loss to the provinces of $800 million to $900 million as a result of the change in the formula. Is it any wonder there is lack of enthusiasm by the provinces when the federal government's earlier guarantees were reneged upon and changed in the middle of the game? The provinces have not received much money under the formula. In 1975-76, which was the first year any funds were actually paid out, the provinces had estimates and had budgeted accordingly. In 1974, indexing was unilaterally introduced by the federal government. This measure cut significantly into provincial as well as federal income tax revenues.
Since 1975 we have seen a limit placed on equalization of oil and gas revenues, a 15 per cent limit on federal contributions to post-secondary education, limits on medicare contributions, withdrawals from services to treaty Indians, cutbacks in funds for police protection, manpower training and regional economic development. It was estimated at the recent finance ministers' conference that in 1975-76 alone, the ten provinces lost $1 billion in potential revenue as a result of just three of the federal government's actions: limiting the equalization of oil and tax revenues, indexing, and changes in the revenue guarantee formula. This figure is expected to increase to $1V4 billion to $114 billion.
The federal government has been making a great deal of noise lately about the need to increase the efficiency of shared-cost programs. For example, it introduced the medical care limits bill in order to force the provinces into steering away from expensive hospital care and toward less expensive forms of treatment. All the while, the provinces had been carrying about $1 billion in such health care programs without any assistance from the federal govern-

June 25, 1976
Medical Care Act
ment. As the Premier of Manitoba stated at the April finance ministers' conference:
-the provincial governments have an even greater interest than the federal government in ensuring improved efficiency-of programs- because with less broadly based taxing powers, it is generally more difficult for the provinces to match federal funds than it is for the federal government to provide them.
The 15 per cent limit on post-secondary education contributions is estimated to have cost the provinces $120 million to $150 million in 1975-76 in forgone revenue. This statement is borne out by the figures of the Department of Finance. In the April, 1976, Economic Review, figures are provided on a national accounts basis for federal, provincial and local government revenues. Even taking into account the dramatic turn-around in 1975, when the federal government went from a surplus of $593 million the year before to a deficit of $4.5 billion, the federal government's cumulative deficit for the years 1960 to 1975 amounted to $3.6 billion, compared to a cumulative deficit for provincial and local governments of $9.6 billion in the same period.
The equalization formula is now under review. The federal government has consistently retreated in recent years from the concept of equalizing revenues: for example, the
1971-72 proposal of the Department of National Health and Welfare for a new formula for cost-sharing health care based on percentage changes in the gross national product on a per capita basis. This plan was rejected by the provinces because it would adversely affect the have-not provinces and destroy national health standards.
It is possible that the federal government could come up with a new equalization formula which bears no direct relationship to the taxing capacities of the provinces. Alternatively, it could produce a formula which simply makes minor adjustments to the present formula to neutralize the impact on equalization of the widening disparities in income among the provinces. Either way, the federal government will most likely seek to reduce the amount it expends on equalization.
Another potential problem concerns the taxation of provincial Crown corporations. I think it most unlikely that the federal government would tax such agencies, although it may in future threaten to hurt the provinces by proposing such a move. Given the figures I listed with regard to fiscal imbalances as between federal and provincial local sectors, one cannot have much sympathy for government claims that the potash takeover, for instance, would have a severe effect on federal government revenues. I do not believe it; therefore, I have little sympathy for the federal government's claim.
I bring these facts forward to show why we feel this bill in its present form should not pass. The government should not retrench in areas as vital as national medicare and hospital care, post-secondary education arrangements with the provinces and the cost-sharing of those programs. Surely, our efforts at restraint should not include such areas. This should be done in other areas; there are other ways of doing it, Mr. Speaker.
On Wednesday afternoon the hon. member for Kootenay West, referring to a newspaper article, quoted the comments of Dr. Louis Brand of Saskatoon. Interpreting what

had been said, the hon. member concluded that Saskatchewan has been forced to reduce its budget for health and hospital care by $44 million and, therefore, there is something seriously wrong with the operation of the province and the way in which it is managing its economy.
The hon. member for Kootenay West has his facts wrong or has accepted wrong information printed in the newspapers. The fact is that the health care budget in Saskatchewan was not reduced by $44 million; it was increased by $46 million in the face of the federal government's threat to restrain, hold at present levels, or even reduce its contributions to hospital and medical care. Even so, Saskatchewan increased its budget for that field by $46 million. The provincial ministers of health and finance have estimated that of the $46 million increase, inflation will have eaten up about $30 million, so that in real dollars the health care budget of Saskatchewan will have risen by only $16 million.
Let me explain what happened in Saskatchewan. I suspect my explanation will show why Dr. Brand, of St. Paul's Hospital, Saskatoon, complained. The sums required by hospitals were reduced, partly for the sake of maximum efficiency and partly to show restraint in areas which do not harm medical services. It was felt that what had already happened with regard to contributions from the federal government had increased the pinch on the provinces and they had to pass some of that pinch on, so to speak. The federal government had already cut back costsharing with regard to the Victorian Order of Nurses, air ambulance services and home care programs. Some of the pinch the federal government had put on the provinces was in turn passed on to the hospital districts, health regions and health care agencies.
The hon. member for Kootenay West made disparaging remarks about the operation of hospital and medical care in Saskatchewan, the province which originally led Canada and North America in the health care field. I am proud enough of that province's accomplishments and of the way those programs are presently operating in Saskatchewan not to be worried by the remarks of the hon. member for Kootenay West. He defended the province of Ontario's record in this field. He can do that if he wishes, but I find his arguments indefensible in this field.
Let us consider the costs of delivering hospital and medical care to individual citizens and families. For example, in British Columbia, medicare premiums are $90 for single persons, $180 for a family of two, and $225 for a family of three or more. In Alberta, the premium is $76.80 for a single person, and $153 for a family of any size. That is somewhat better than the premium charged in British Columbia. Next, let us consider rates in Ontario, the province for which the hon. member for Kootenay West felt sorry and so defended it. Ontario assesses $192 for a single person, and $384 for a family.
In Saskatchewan, the premiums charged individual citizens and families are zero: no premiums are paid by citizens in that province. Not only are our provincial programs well run, contrary to what the hon. member for Kootenay West alleges, but they are run in the best possible fashion from the standpoint of financing; that is, the funds raised by the province are raised fairly through taxation based on ability to pay. Funds are raised by way of income tax,
June 25, 1976

corporation tax and sales tax, as well as from revenues derived from our natural resources. Our people get the benefit of their natural resources and funds derived from those resources are applied to programs such as hospital care, medicare, and so on.
Of course, we must always be vigilant in making sure our hospital and<medical care programs are run efficiently and without waste of money. In the health care field I should like to see more done with regard to how doctors allocate beds in hospitals. Mr. Speaker, people do not put themselves into hospital; doctors put them there. I am told that sometimes doctors refuse to reallocate beds even when there are waiting lists. It may be that a doctor has to plant his crop on his hobby farm and wants to disappear for a week, or he may want to go fishing for a day or two. Be that as it may, he will not reallocate beds. That, it seems to me, is inefficiency. I hope that Dr. Brand, the former Conservative candidate whom the hon. member quoted, will take the lead among his medical colleagues in Saskatchewan in making certain that the most efficient hospital and medical care services possible are provided.
Saskatchewan has made specific cutbacks in other programs purely on account of inflation and the necessity to hold down costs as much as possible. It is also partly because of federal government cutbacks and fear with regard to the intentions of the federal government in coming years concerning the cost-sharing of these programs. As I say, Saskatchewan has made some specific cutbacks. These were necessary for the reasons I have mentioned. The department of health's budget of $338 million is $46 million above the amount actually spent last year. However, severe cutbacks had to be made in the initial budget request.
The department asked for $44.3 million, which was eventually granted. This included $30 million to meet increasing costs of existing programs, and $14.3 million to finance group programs. One cutback in Saskatchewan was forgoing the $14.3 million to finance new health care programs, something that members on all sides of the House have been urging the federal government to do for the past several years. They might well want to pat themselves on the back for their cost-sharing in medicare, but they are still dragging their feet, refusing to take part in new health programs.
The federal government should be more involved in assisting the provinces and territories in the matter of air ambulance service. This should involve a very nominal fee for the patient, with the major part of the cost being shared by the federal government and provincial governments. Instead of this, the federal government has been cutting back. There should be new programs, or present programs should be extended, with regard to home care, nutrition education and better diets, all of which are part of health care.
We have a situation where the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is up to his eyes in milk, when literally hundreds of thousands of people in this country are not getting the amount of milk they need. I do not understand why that minister cannot persuade the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Finance to start
Medical Care Act
up a school milk program in the provinces and territories. I find it appalling that in almost every school there is a Coke machine but no milk machine. That might keep the dentists busy, but it does not do much for the children. The federal government should assist with a provincial school milk program and should pay the major part of the costs in the case of the territories.
There are many new programs that should be begun. The federal government should follow the lead of Saskatchewan with regard to pharmacare, hearing aids, dental care for children, which Saskatchewan pays for on its own. The federal government should be moving into these areas. Instead of that, they have put the provinces in the position where they must cut back on their health care budgets. I find that alarming.
The government of Saskatchewan had to carefully assess and make selective reductions in those programs where it was felt they could be absorbed without significantly limiting benefits to the public. That was not easy to do. One such cut involved the number of patient days for which hospitals will be reimbursed by the Saskatchewan hospital services plan. The government has been working with the hospitals to reappraise the personnel and budget for each. It has made some tough decisions which have resulted in some cost efficiencies.
The government has decided that further restraints must be applied to hospital spending. They have decided upon a general reduction of 5 per cent in the approved number of patient days for which all hospitals will be paid. This should not cause too much difficulty in Saskatchewan, in terms of service, because for a number of years that province has had the highest number of general hospital beds per 1,000 population. Therefore, a 5 per cent reduction should not restrict hospital benefits in the province. What I find tragic is that it should even be necessary for the provinces to have to resort to this, not only because of inflation and ensuring that the programs are operating efficiently, but because of federal government cost sharing in the health field.
We oppose Bill C-68. We will do all that we can to prevent it being passed. This is not the direction for the government to move. This is not the area to which the government should be paying attention and giving priority with regard to cutting expenses. In this legislation, as well as other legislation with regard to revenue and cost-sharing programs, the federal government is reneging; they are backing out of a deal, going back on their word. If the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are somewhat nonplussed or concerned about the lack of co-operation of the provincial premiers, they should take a good look at their own actions. The activities of the federal government have done more to harm confederation and national unity, as well as causing failure at federal-provincial conferences, than anything the provinces might have done.
If there is an element of distrust and lack of faith on the part of the provinces, I submit there is some cause for that. When the federal government starts to renege on a commitment halfway through a deal-and this has cost the provinces $1 billion-naturally the premiers will be somewhat suspicious. They will look upon new proposals by the Minister of National Health and Welfare with a jaundiced eye. I do not blame them for the way they feel about these

June 25, 1976
Medical Care Act
federal proposals in the health care field and in the whole area of revenue and tax sharing.
The federal government has been less than completely open with the provinces. They have left a large number of questions unanswered about which the provinces need data. They must have these answers from the federal government before making any rational decisions with regard to federal government proposals made over the past several months. It is incumbent upon the federal government to meet them more than halfway in providing that information, as well as complete information on the intentions of the federal government. The provinces must have this before they can start with any degree of responsibility to accept proposals by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
I urge the House not to let this bill pass, so that the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Finance will have to go back to the drawing board and come up with something better to submit to this parliament and the provinces of Canada.


Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer a few comments from the riding of Capilano, in the province of British Columbia, on third reading of Bill C-68, to amend the Medical Care Act. This act might be entitled "a tale of good intentions and unmanageable consequences".
I would not be taking part in this debate had it not been for some of the political venom spewed forth by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) using the occasion to aggravate the condition which exists in the province of Ontario. He paid high tribute to his colleague, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), and I would like to endorse that tribute. But one thing has to be put on record to correct the statements made by the hon. member for Nickel Belt and those in his party. It is this: some 15 years ago the government of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) recognized that action should be taken to reduce income barriers to adequate health care, and he appointed a royal commission to assess the situation and bring in recommendations.
There were two obvious needs at that time. A minority of the population were not in a position to afford adequate health care, and the care they did receive was subsidized by other patients through the fee structures of hospitals and the medical profession. I agree that this did interfere with the dignity of people with marginal incomes, those at the perimeter of the work force. The second was that families risked being made bankrupt by having to pay catastrophic hospital and medical costs. Many were protected against this hazard by a variety of successful private and corporate plans. In those days, many of us who were then just hard working members of the public, taxpayers of Canada, spoke out with regard to the possible consequences of a universal plan for health care. The Liberals came to power. They considered the studies of the royal commission to which I have referred, and they opted for universality despite the warnings of the provinces and the advice of many of us who were involved in this field as citizens in our communities.
This decision led to the destruction of the private plans which were looking after some 85 per cent of the people in Canada at that time. Many of us who were members of community organizations were in favour of government subsidies to look after the medical needs of those in the work force whose incomes were marginal. The day has now come when we see clearly that there is no such thing as a free lunch. What people need now is a system of cost-benefit measurements which relates to their own purchasing power. We have hidden the cost of medicare. We have created a system which is out of control. We are failing to utilize our tax resources efficiently. Hence the present debate on an act to amend the Medical Care Act.
Some of us in those days were calling for an end-user tax by means of which the taxpayer could measure the cost of the services which were being provided for him in terms of his own income. Hon. members to my left will immediately scream that such a proposal favours the rich and works against the poor. But we were also suggesting that there be increased tax exemptions at the lower level of the income scale to counter such objections. The chance of having a means of meaningful measurement of cost was thrown away. We offered free lunches all over the country. Now we have to pay the piper.
This program, which was imposed unilaterally upon the country by the Liberal government, has created bureaucracies at the federal level, at the provincial level and at the hospital level. The bureaucracy has grown to such an extent that non-medical administrators exercise more control than the doctors trying to cure patients. There is continual agitation and confrontation between doctors, patients, hospital staffs and the system.
These disputes and the runaway costs of health care are a reflection of the inflation which is causing so much hardship and is bringing our system to its knees. In my opinion, it started with the St. Lawrence Seaway settlement under the Liberal administration of that day-an ad hoc measure for which we are now paying the price. We have since seen an escalation in costs on every side, and a recklessness in the use of our tax resources for which the government in power is totally responsible. The stability of the structure to which the scheme is related is now being threatened.
Having committed the federal treasury to massive expenditures, the government finds itself short of cash, unable to generate sufficient funds to discharge the commitments it has made. In these circumstances, it is preparing to dump the worst of its financial problems on to the provinces although they are already overburdened with tasks laid upon them in Ottawa. The effect of this proposal to cap expenditures will be dislocation of services throughout the provinces. Had the Liberal government, back in the days when insurance schemes were serving 85 per cent of our population, left that structure intact and put in a scheme to assist those on marginal incomes, this dilemma would not exist today.
Members of the New Democratic Party have devoted a good deal of time to attacking the province of Ontario for the readjustments it is making to meet the changes which this bill is designed to impose. I remember that some years ago I personally presented a case for more efficient administration of health services to the NDP cabinet in

June 25, 1976

British Columbia. It arose from the fact that laboratories and X-ray facilities in British Columbia hospitals were not being used over the weekends. Nevertheless, doctors were booking patients into those hospitals on a Friday and the patients were lying in expensive chronic care beds over the weekend. Nothing could be done until Monday, when the laboratory staff and technicians arrived and the usual two-day or three-day program of tests could be carried out. Here is an obvious case of hospital accommodation being needlessly taken up.
I had the opportunity of pleading with the provincial NDP cabinet of British Columbia to make sure that the X-ray and laboratory facilities of the hospitals were manned over the weekend so that this waste would stop, so that we would stop building additional facilities and unnecessarily tying up expensive beds. But what did they do, Mr. Speaker? Not a thing. They were not interested in the more efficient use of existing facilities. They wanted to play the same kind of political game that we have seen from NDP members in this House today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Years ago I used to be in the business of consulting and productivity and I studied in the early 1950s, the work study concepts that evolved from Britain and from which the European Common Market, West Germany and other European nations grew. There was a great science developing in productivity work studies, critical path studies, and so on, and I had the opportunity of hiring one of these experts from the United Kingdom, who immigrated to Canada. He was on my staff for four or five years until his function with our organization was phased out. He then moved from our organization to a similar department of the federal government in Vancouver, and I never saw a man become so frustrated by the incompetence, inefficiency and the "I don't care" attitude as this lad who worked for us for so many years and did so much for our company. One productivity study, critical path study or work study after another having to do with hospitals and other government operations was locked away in filing cabinets and never read again.
Here we are, today, at the point where we are having to amend an act which has been in force in Canada for years, because the government is not paying attention to the efficient utilization of our tax resources. They have not implemented any of the studies of task forces. We have had task force report after report presented to the government, none of which has ever been studied or implemented, having to do with health and delivery care in our national system. The minister has ignored continual references to these reports in the House of Commons. Province after province has protested, yet we have seen nothing but powerful Liberal arrogance. Today we are paying for this kind of neglect.
Even before this bill is passed the provinces are having to make cutbacks in expenditure. We have already heard about the $750 million that this government owes the government of British Columbia, reaching back to 1972. B.C. has its problems of cash flow, too. The NDP throughout this debate has made nothing but political hay at the
Medical Care Act
expense of the province of Ontario, which is immersed in an unbelievable readjustment that affects the emotions of people all over the province as well as the country. The people of Ontario had better pay attention and head off the irresponsible extravagance that we have just witnessed in the last three years in British Columbia.
In British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, you never saw nests built and feathered so fast as in the three years of the NDP, B.C. sham. Our friends in the New Democratic Party talk about serving the little guy, the average man on the street. What utter nonsense! How can they do that when their vested interest and their bankroll comes from organized labour and the higher echelons of this monopoly movement? "Grab, grab, grab, and to hell with those who don't pay dues to us." They may be whining about individual cases of hardship, and so forth, but they have had their chance to serve and they missed out, particularly in the area I come from.
The waste of our tax resources by this government is one of the things that has brought this bill to this House. We have the example of $200,000 being paid for unused rooms at the Habitat conference in Vancouver. We have the example of a co-operative to which this government has some $4.5 million of commitment in the north of Vancouver Island which has been in operation only a year and is now in receivership. They had a $1.7 million guarantee on a $2.5 million Bank of Montreal loan. They have committed $2.5 million of DREE money under ARDA to these people in order to employ 75 people, two-thirds of whom were supposed to be native people. This is an unbelievable use of money since there is not a sound, solid marketing plan to back up the issuance of this kind of credit.
Over $86,000 per person has been spent by the government in trying to create jobs. This is how the tax resources of this country are being wasted all over the country, and yet we are discussing a bill like this. We have committed $16 million to Lockheed for the Orion, and we do not yet know whether we have one aeroplane. The bilingualism commissioner has for two years now been calling for a better use of our tax resources for this particular aspect of Canadian life, yet have we seen one move made in any direction which he has called for? Then we have had dredging scandals-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest the hon. member get back to the debate on Bill C-68, an act to amend the Medical Care Act.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to re-emphasize the fact that I am debating the bill. The reason the bill is before the House is that this government can no longer afford the unilateral commitment that it imposed upon the provinces. This government has no proper priorities for our tax resources in this land, and it is time somebody brought to light the extravagances and wasteful use of our resources which have caused this bill to come to the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: This government's priorities are from election to election, with decisions being reached by "ad hockery". Their spending is out of control, otherwise this bill would not be before the House. They are spending
9SS70-40

Medical Care Act
beyond cash flow, and all these costs will have to be paid by tomorrow's work force. How would you feel, Mr. Speaker, if you were so extravagant in the management of your affairs that you put the cost of today's benefits and privileges on tomorrow's work force?


Some hon. Members:: One o'clock.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I have still more to say when we reconvene. This brings me to a further point having to do with priorities. Research Council grants have been cut off, and I should like to take this opportunity to say a little more about the priorities of this government. A most important research project has been going on in the Vancouver General Hospital in connection with the disease of diabetes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair till two o'clock later this day.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, when my quiet, constructive dialogue was interrupted at one o'clock, I was talking about the record of wasteful use this government has made of our tax dollars, and the fact that there is no such thing as a free lunch. The government has finally found this out. This has brought us to the debate on Bill C-68.
I want to emphasize the lack of priority this government has for matters that can in the future reduce the cost of medical care in Canada. I would mention that the Medical Research Council, in its wisdom, has seen fit to dismiss the $40,000 medical grant to Dr. Wah Jun Tze who is a consultant at the Vancouver General Hospital and a director of the metabolic investigation unit at the Children's Hospital in Vancouver. I realize we are on the other side of the mountains-


Mr. Kaplan:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the hon. member is aware that the bill before us has nothing to do with research, which is covered in other legislation. I would respectfully suggest that he is out of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I did bring this to the hon. member's attention just before lunch. I would suggest that he get back to the terms of Bill C-68, an act to amend the Medical Care Act.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With due respect, sir, the point I am making is very germane to the reason Bill C-68 is before the House and the lack of priorities on the part of the government regarding research which could reduce the cost of medical care. If those priorities were in a little better order, we would not be debating this bill today.
I was mentioning the fact that Dr. Tze was involved in a very important piece of research in relation to diabetes

which holds tremendous potential for the reduction of the cost of medical health care. I remember from my schooling the tremendous good will that was produced for Canada by the work of Dr. Charles H. Best and Dr. Frederick G. Banting regarding insulin. Here we had a research project, which evidently has very low priority, in the final stages of establishing the fact that islet cells which produce insulin and can correct diabetes can be transplanted, without rejection, in rats. At this point in time the government, because of its lack of priorities, sees fit to remove the grant for this very important work which would result in reducing medical health care costs in Canada in the future.
I think the point I am making is very germane to this debate. If it had not been for the anger aroused in the Vancouver community, that very important work, as a result of which the conclusion was reached that islet cells from a related rat could remove diabetes in a diseased rat, without rejection-and islet cells from an unrelated rat cause rejection and secondary detrimental effects in rats with diabetes-would have been stopped. It is to the credit of Mr. Ed. Murphy, a former member of the press gallery in the House, who is now a "hotliner" in Vancouver, that he was able to raise some $26,000 from the public to allow this important research work to be carried on. We seemed to have a chance to reduce tomorrow's costs with today's research, but we see the government's priorities interfering with a mere $40,000 which could allow important work of this nature to be carried on.
In closing my comments in this debate on Bill C-68, may I repeat the words used by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in concluding his remarks last Wednesday, when he said, "We don't trust you". With all the unilateral action this government has taken, that is one of the constant facts with which we are faced across Canada today: people no longer trust this government. There is the example of the airline pilots, the example of Bill C-61 which is causing anguish in the maritime provinces, the example of cost-sharing for post-secondary education, which was double-dealing-particularly for my province-and now we have this unilateral action in Bill C-68. It is too bad that bills of this nature have to be brought forward at this time.
I believe that in my comments I have explained fully why this party, and I as the member for Capilano, cannot support the legislation.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important for me to enter this debate for the second time. I spoke on the bill at second reading. I was not satisfied with it then, and I am certainly not satisfied with it now. I had the impression, when listening to the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington), that he was basically opposed to medicare and that he felt many of the private medical plans back in the 1950s, such as PSI in Ontario, were far superior to the universal, present medicare legislation.
I should like to remind the hon. member that in those days there was not nearly the equality of treatment that we have today. I am not blaming the physicians for this, or the surgeons. I think the major problem in those days lay with the fact that we simply did not have sufficient hospi-
June 25, 1976

tal facilities, operating room facilities and medical people, so that 15 per cent of the population-and that is many Canadians-were not covered by any kind of medical care plan. I defy anyone in the House to stand up and say honestly that the general public is opposed to medicare. It is not. Some may complain about the increase in premiums. Sometimes the premiums jump too quickly, particularly in the province of Ontario where they jumped quite drastically in the past year.
However, there is one thing about universality which I think the hon. member may have omitted from his speech, namely, that if all people are involved in the universal program, the most vocal and powerful groups in the country, which are usually organizations of professionals, of educated people, of physicians as well as of lawyers, accountants and trade unionists, make sure that the quality of medicare under a universal program shall continue to improve, because they have the power to demand that it shall improve. The quality of the program does improve as the years go by. But there is always the possibility that when only a certain percentage of the population is involved-and usually the great majority of people are in the lower income bracket-the quality of private medicare scheme treatment may not be as high, and I emphasize the words "may not". This is why I believe in universality.
I do not believe in waste. I do not believe we should have facilities which are not necessary. I appreciate the fact that some hospitals across the country may have to be closed. We had an incident in my constituency of Brant where the people so far have made the major decision as to whether a hospital in the area will close. I think some of these basic philosophical standards should be established at the outset of any hon. member's address to the House. What we all want, regardless of political affiliation, is the best quality of medical care, at the best price. I admit that there has been abuse and that some hospitals have overspent, and I am not just referring to Ontario. The hon. member for Capilano seemed to dwell on just two provinces, British Columbia and Ontario.
I am willing to admit that in Ontario-I am not familiar with British Columbia-there has been some waste. The fundamental fact still remains that it is the sick person to whom we are addressing ourselves in this bill. If we could clean off some of the fat without reducing the quality of medicare, then most of us in the House would appreciate that universal medicare, which has been in effect for many years, is probably more desirable than private insurance plans which are sometimes very difficult to obtain for a number of Canadians.
When the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) spoke on third reading of Bill C-68, he outlined the reasons he felt it necessary to introduce the bill, and how recent events, particularly the first ministers' conference, had led him to believe that Bill C-68 would now pass without too much opposition. As he now knows, he was wrong. We in this party do not believe that anything has changed since the introduction of this bill which would cause us, as a party, to support the bill in toto. A week ago yesterday, the minister said in the House that just two days previously the government had submitted to provincial governments a new financing formula which would consist of the transfer of a certain number of tax points, as
Medical Care Act
well as equalized per capita payments across the country. He went on to say that the formula met with the approval, in principle, of most provinces. He did not say "all" provinces.
This was one of the factors which prompted the minister to say that he hoped this bill could now go through all stages without delay. It seems to me that while the provinces may have agreed in principle, the fact remains that they were less enthusiastic about the proposals presented to them. This should not have come as any surprise to the federal government, in view of its attack on provincial revenues dating back to 1972.
If hon. members recall, in 1972, under tax reform, the provincial share of income tax growth was reduced from 28 per cent to 23.4 per cent. To make up for this a revenue guarantee formula was drawn up to protect provincial tax revenues for a five-year period. This five-year period was to have ended in 1977. Since 1972, the provinces have not received much money under the formula, and consequently they budgeted accordingly. In other words, they had to overbudget because they were not receiving what they had anticipated they would receive from the federal government. This, of course, was passed on, as in most cost-sharing programs, to the municipalities. Let me tell this House that in the province of Ontario, and no doubt in other provinces, the municipalities are now bearing the brunt of the restraints programs not only of the federal government but of the provincial governments. In other words, the buck has been passed all the way down to the local municipal councils and township councils, which are closest to the people on a day to day basis. They are the ones who are getting it in the neck by letter and by telephone, day in and day out.
In 1974, indexing was introduced by the federal government and this resulted in significant losses in provincial tax revenues. Since 1975, the federal government has placed limits on an assortment of programs; for example, limiting equalization of oil and gas revenues, limiting the growth of federal contributions to post-secondary education, and so on. In view of all these limitations, it is no wonder the provinces are extremely skeptical about any new financing formula. Based on recent past history, the provinces cannot be faulted for thinking that any new financing formula probably means a further squeezing of provincial revenues. This would most certainly be the case with respect to health costs.
On June 18, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said in this House that in the plan for the future, the country and the provinces would limit the rate of escalation of health and education programs more or less to the rate of growth of the gross national product. I think it was quite appropriate for my colleague, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare what possible relationship there is between the incidence of illness and the gross national product, especially in view of the fact that last year the cost of providing health services went up by 15 per cent and at the same time the gross national product was virtually at a standstill. How the Prime Minister worked that one out, I do not know; but according to the government, that is the formula.
95570-40%

June 25, 1976
Medical Care Act
Since the Prime Minister did not adequately respond to this question, except to say that there are obviously contingency plans-he did not spell them out-we can conclude that the provinces are to be left holding the bag. This would essentially leave the provinces with two choices. They could raise revenues through their own taxation powers and continue to meet these costs, or they could cut back on some of the valuable services they are presently providing. The first alternative would only be available to the wealthier provinces in Canada; the second would most likely be the end result for the majority of the provinces, and provinces like Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island would suffer very much.
In view of the statement of the Minister of National Health and Welfare on June 17, that Bill C-68 would now be more palatable as a result of the first ministers' conference, I put forward the following points to the minister. The federal proposal to the provinces would entail a transfer of a certain number of tax points to the provinces. Surely the minister and the Prime Minister realize that transferring tax points, particularly if these revenues are equalized only to the national average, will mean reduced federal contributions to rich provinces such as Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.
In addition, we must seriously question whether per capita contributions to the provinces will be appropriate. The minister must be aware that costs-I refer here to health costs-may be higher in some provinces as a result of any number of factors. This being the case, I can only envisage a situation whereby we shall not have any national standards in terms of health care as a result of all provinces receiving the same per capita contribution.
When medicare first came in, if I recall correctly there was an equalizing factor to it. People born anywhere in this country received an equal standard of medical care. If this bill goes through as it is-and we have a majority government; we know that we cannot block the bill indefinitely-I am convinced that there are people in outlying areas of Newfoundland, the hinterland of New Brunswick, in northern parts of Canada and in other remote parts of Canada-who are entitled to the same benefits as a child or a sick person in the cities of Toronto or Vancouver-who will not receive the same standard of medical care. In this House we legislate for the whole of the country and not just for any particular province or city.
Nothing has happened since this bill was introduced months ago which has caused me or my colleagues to lessen our opposition to it. Bill C-68 was designed to place a ceiling on the federal government's contribution to the medical care program. Essentially, it is a first step in dismantling the health insurance program of this country. Based on the little we have been able to find out about the intentions of this government with respect to replacing the current cost-sharing agreements, it seems evident that it has every intention of placing the burden of health care on the provinces.
I would like to digress without straying too far from the bill. In the United States, where they tout the great free enterprise approach to medical care, not only is the cost of professional medical care-that of physicians and hospitals-much higher than the cost in Canada, but private insurance premiums are also much higher. Are we going to

revert to that kind of program in this country? I hope to God we are not.
I would like to reiterate what I said during debate on second reading of this bill. The Minister of National Health and Welfare pointed out in late January that Canadians enjoy one of the best health systems in the world. While this is true, much of the credit goes to the provinces, two of which-Saskatchewan and Manitoba-have instituted programs such as dentacare, free drugs, the provision of hearing aids and the like. While these progressive provinces are to be congratulated, in my view we must keep in mind that if Canada is to achieve a high uniform standard of health care right across the land, the federal government will have to become more involved in these programs, not less, as it is attempting with measures such as Bill C-68 and new cost-sharing agreements. I can well appreciate this government's desire to cut down on its expenditures. However-and this has been said before-if we must cut government spending, let us pinpoint those areas in which we can most afford cuts.
The federal government's contributions to the provinces under the Medical Care Act have, in fact, been rising in very modest proportions in the past few years. For example, in the 1972-73 fiscal year the percentage increase in federal contributions to the provinces was 7.6 per cent; in 1973-74 the increase was 8.8 per cent; and in 1974-75 it dropped to 6.6 per cent. I do not wish to suggest that these are small sums of money, but at the same time I find it incomprehensible that in times of supposed restraint, when we see the private sector spending millions of dollars building mammoth hotels and office buildings, some of which are currently not being used, we are closing hospitals in the name of restricting government expenditures.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare may say that hospital closings have nothing to do with federal measures such as Bill C-68, but I would point out to him and the government that medical care and hospitals are financed out of one budget in each of the provinces. When you combine restraint in Bill C-68 with the load of current programs not included under federal cost-sharing, and add to it the uncertainty concerning the future terms, for example respecting cost-sharing hospital costs, something in the provincial health budget has to go. Several hospitals in Ontario have either gone or are on the verge of going, although I hope some of them will not.
While it is extremely difficult to understand the reasoning behind the current round of hospital closings-if in fact there is any reason-two incidents which recently occurred in Ontario serve as examples of how federal financing priorities can affect a province. The provincial Tory government announced that two psychiatric hospitals-one in Goderich and one in northern Ontario-are to be closed and the buildings are to be used to treat the mentally retarded. Psychiatric hospitals are not included under federal cost-sharing; centres for the mentally retarded are.
These psychiatric hospitals were not closed because of a reduced need for them-in fact, all information points to their being run efficiently and usefully-but because the provincial government simply felt it could not afford them
June 25, 1976

any longer. This is ironic when we find that by closing the psychiatric hospitals and reopening them as mental retardation centres, total costs will increase by $650,000. Aside from the stupidity of this provincial action, this serves as a glaring example of the type of situation that can arise out of federal initiatives such as contained in Bill C-68.
One of the underlying assumptions of this bill-and the minister responsible for it restated it during his third reading remarks-is that the government saw a need to increase the efficiency of shared-cost programs. This bill would have the effect of forcing the provinces into steering away from expensive hospital care and toward less expensive forms of treatment. Those are not my sentiments, but those of the minister. Nothing could be more callous, if we take into account the fact that the provinces have been carrying about $1 billion in those less expensive, preventive medical programs without any assistance from the federal government. I think that is a very important point.
While I would agree that we must start to change the health delivery system, that is, get into lower-cost forms of treatment, the federal government has done virtually nothing in this regard. When the province of Ontario decided to close hospitals arbitrarily, there were no alternate plans made to take care of those who needed some form of treatment. I agree that it was wasteful and inefficient to keep people in active treatment hospitals when they should have been in lower-cost nursing homes. But no steps have been taken by the government to ensure that enough nursing homes are built to accommodate those who require them.
We could go a long way toward reducing health costs if the federal government worked hand in hand with the provinces to institute lower-cost services. This simply has not been done. Provinces which have these services have instituted them on their own. Therefore, we have a situation in this country whereby the wealthier provinces, if they so choose, can initiate these moves on their own and provide adequate health care. The poorer provinces, on the other hand, simply have to do without. This, again, is not what I call co-operative federalism. It is not the real kind of federalism that we should have in this country.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare is well aware that preventive health measures would do much to reduce our health costs. After all, it was he-according to his statement of about a week ago-who was the author of the booklet "A New Perspective on the Health of Canadians". I shall not go into some of the suggestions made in it; other members have already done so. The only point to be made here is that while he eschews the virtues of preventing various illnesses, he, through his government, will not undertake to provide adequate funds to begin programs which would do much in the way of preventive care. Again, I need only remind this government where the funds came from to initiate dentacare and pharmacare in some of the provinces.
Within the context of preventive health care, it was interesting to note that on June 15 this House discussed a motion in the name of the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) criticizing the failure of the government to give adequate priority to health research funding. That motion was very significant with regard to the bill we are debating today. I suggest that this is not out of order. If we
Medical Care Act
examine the government's record of performance regarding research in general and medical research in particular, we see that there has been a slow but steady erosion of the research dollar on a pretty well continuous basis since 1971. In fact, this year, with the freeze on research funds, the total value of current dollars available for research is down considerably.
What this means in terms of our long term health costs can best be summed up by the comments made by Dr. H. Arnold Steinberg who is the chairman of Canadians for Health Research. That is what this bill is about, and it is why I say I am in order, as was the hon. member who spoke before me. Part of Dr. Steinberg's letter was read into the record on June 15, but it bears repeating during this debate. He said:
The quantity and quality of medical research affects every Canadian in two principal ways (1) it is the only practical answer to reducing health care costs-
I repeat-
-to reducing health care costs by finding cures to those diseases which randomly strike thousands of people necessitating government expenditures now in excess of $7 billion annually.
If the Minister of National Health and Welfare is at all serious about preventive health care, I would ask him to question his colleague, the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Drury) about his priorities. Why has he frozen research funds? The second point in Dr. Steinberg's letter, the freezing of medical research funds, was covered when he said:
-has caused a major cutback in medical research activity ... this will have a profound impact on hospital care and the quality of teaching medicine across the country.
Both arrangements will be adversely affected. We have in this country a situation whereby one minister-the Minister of National Health and Welfare-makes pious statements about the need for preventing health care measures, while another, the Minister of State for Science and Technology, subverts this by failing to provide the needed money, which in the long run would save us money in the whole field of health care.
Mr. Speaker, one of the major conclusions that was reached by members of the opposition during the debate on health research funding was that this government, no matter what various ministers say, has not grasped the idea that the future of hospital economics is clearly bound up with the future of medical science and technology. The Minister of National Health and Welfare showed this lack of comprehension when he said the following in a speech delivered to the annual meeting of the Canadian Nurses' Association a few days ago:
The country cannot afford for very much longer the type of rise in health costs that it has experienced in recent years ... it has been shown that pouring money into health care does not translate necessarily into better health.
He went on to suggest that quality of life is the critical factor in health as well as the avoidance of unnecessary illness and premature death. In other words, individual Canadians should assume more responsibility for their own well-being. However, as I have stated before, this is only part of the solution. Frankly, I think all individuals

June 25, 1976
Medical Care Act
should be more responsible for promoting their own personal health. Good health in itself is not the end; it is just the beginning, the prerequisite to high quality of life. Therefore, it is not enough for the government to say to Canadians, "We shall arbitrarily cut back spending on health costs and research. The onus will now be on you to become more physicially fit, that is, get more exercise, stop smoking and reduce your intake of alcohol, and so on."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Reginald Cyril Symes: What is the minister doing about it?


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: My colleague from Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) asks, what the minister is doing about it. What can the government do? Can it legislate against smoking and against the consumption of alcohol? Perhaps it can, but I do not think that is the right or practical way to go. Why not end tax concessions given to those powerful, wealthy industries which produce cigarettes in particular and alcoholic beverages.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Hear, hear!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands, who spent a considerable portion of his political life arguing for health insurance, has always maintained, correctly, that there are two phases to health insurance. The first, which for the most part has been achieved, is to remove the financial barrier between individuals providing health care and those receiving health care. The second phase is that we had to begin changing the health delivery system. In other words, if we want to reduce the cost of health insurance we will have to replace some of the high-cost services with lower-cost services. Again, it needs to be stressed that for the initial period this would necessitate an outlay of money, but in the long run savings would be realized.
It is my sincere hope, Mr. Speaker, that this bill will not be passed. There is every indication that members on the government side will see fit to give the bill final approval. In doing this, the government may satisfy the wishes of those who have declared that this government should curtail its expenditures. Nevertheless, if it does pass it will surely be to the detriment of all Canadians who require, and indeed deserve, the best possible health care system which can be provided.
I return to what the minister said and what others have repeated during this third reading debate. Canadians enjoy one of the best health care systems in the world. Why does the minister-who is not in his seat this afternoon-want to change it? If he boasts-accurately, I think-that we have had for several years one of the best health care systems in the world, what is the point of reducing its efficiency or of lessening its ability to deliver health care in a general sense? I quite agree about the need to trim some fat. But why must we jeopardize the established system of federal-provincial cost-sharing originally set up with the interest of the health of this country's people in mind?
Perhaps Liberal Senator David Croll best summed up my thoughts on this bill when he said:
It is wrong in concept, it is divisive in practice, and in my opinion it is wrong, wrong, wrong, a thousand times wrong.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad of this opportunity to participate in the closing hours, hopefully, of the debate on Bill C-68, not having participated previously in the debate at second reading stage of this fundamental bill. Many of my concerns have been ably expressed, particularly by members on the opposition side. Some concerns have been expressed by members on the government side. I wonder, on this Friday afternoon, what William Lyon Mackenzie King, looking down on us from up above, would think of Bill C-68 which represents a retreat from the flagship of the Liberal party's social program which he introduced in part.
This bill will put fundamental restrictions on something Canadians from coast to coast need, namely, medicare. The program was begun a decade ago, when I was a neophyte member of this House, under the then leader of the Liberal party, Lester Pearson. The government had proposed a formula which would interest-that is the conservative word, although "seduce" might be more appropriate-the ten provinces in joining the proposed medicare program, a program which was to be greatly to the benefit of the Canadian people. Little provinces like P.E.I. and Nova Scotia, other provinces like Ontario, and richer provinces like Alberta chose to join the program. British Columbia is in its own district category.
There were four conditions for joining. The government said to the provinces, "You do not have to participate in the program; we do not intend to trespass on your jurisdiction. However, if you abide by four conditions, we shall give you federal money with which to set up a bona fide medicare program." That program was designed to help all Canadians, particularly those who did not have money to obtain proper medical services. The formula was fair and provided for a 50-50 system of cost-sharing as between the government and participating provinces. Succumbing either to suggestion or political seduction, all ten provinces, over time, joined the program. As the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk), other members of my party and the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) speaking on behalf of the NDP, said, we have set up in this country a pretty respectable, responsible plan of medicare for all Canadian citizens.
Then something happened. Out of the blue, unilaterally, the federal government made an announcement. It decided that the ground rules would no longer provide for a 50-50 cost-sharing as between federal and provincial governments. Participation would be on the basis of provincial expenditures. We know costs have been rising. The government, in the name of responsibility in spending, wanted to control the escalation in medicare spending. That was a laudable objective, but the government's action would have been more laudable and better received if it had come about after consultation and negotiation with the provinces concerned.
Such a process would have been preferable to the unilateral statement which announced what the government intended to do. In so many words, the government said to the provinces, "You had better come along with us, boys. Now we have a majority in the House of Commons and if we want to we can change the ground rules." Perhaps that is oversimplifying the matter. All the same, this is a subject of extreme concern to all Canadians from coast to
June 25, 1976

coast. My part of Canada, which is not famed for the greatness of its financial resources, is most concerned. Even when the government shared costs on a 50-50 basis, the people of my area, which is coloquially known as an area of regional economic disparity, never enjoyed the sort of medical care services which were available in richer provinces like Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. Being richer, those provinces were able to develop a medicare system with many extras which provinces like my native Nova Scotia could not afford. Certainly, on a 50-50 basis, it is part of the problem in post-secondary education, about which I know a little, having the very illustrious Acadia University in my home town. That university surpasses most others in basketball, football and hockey, as well as being a leader in the educational field. Even though it is a small university, it has won several basketball championships. We believe in quality rather than quantity.
With regard to medicare, and at the same time appreciating the problem of post-secondary education, with a 50-50 program one province may have more capacity for building a medicare or education program with extras. With the federal government sharing 50-50, obviously with an expensive program it gives to the citizens and students of the richer provinces something better than can be afforded in those provinces which do not have as many economic resources. We understand that in a way; it is part of the facts of life in Canada. With a medicare program or any other social legislation, the emphasis has always been, whether it be a Liberal or Conservative government, to try to equalize opportunities. This is true with regard to medical services and education.
Also on the docket is the hospitalization program. The federal government has given notice that it wants to opt out of that program. However, when the program was brought in by a Conservative government under the leadership of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), a clause was inserted to the effect that a province or party wanting to opt out must give five years' notice. That is why in this bill the government is giving five years' notice.
Hopefully, within the five years the provinces and the federal government will be able to work out a suitable substitute program for hospitalization. It would be anarchy if the federal government pulled out of this hospital plan without having something to fill the vacuum. I do not think this government would want to stumble, as we will be stumbling into the July 1 weekend next week, and God knows how many weeks after that, into that type of quagmire with regard to medical services in this country.
In the hospitalization program put into place by the Conservative government of the day, the five-year notice requirement before any province or party could opt out was a very constructive proposal. However, as I said earlier, under a Conservative or Liberal government the emphasis has always been to try to equalize medical services and educational opportunities. We are debating the medicare bill today. It does not have the five-year notice provision. That is why we had unilateral action about a year ago, and why there has not been very much consultation or negotiation as the government moves on with this
Medical Care Act
bill, and I might point out that we are in the dying stages of the bill.
As I pointed out earlier, even a 50-50 program mitigates against a program that does not have fundamental economic wealth. On a 50-50 basis, the richer provinces are able to have a better type of medicare scheme than the poorer provinces. I know several cases in my constituency where people have told me they would benefit from a medical care program if they lived in Ontario, because the provisions cover that here, whereas in Nova Scotia they do not. We are always a little reluctant about a 50-50 basis, but at least we know it is a start toward equalized opportunity.
I have read most of the debate on Bill C-68. I have talked to the chairman of our committee, the hon. member for Athabasca. For some strange reason, the government will, out of the blue, be putting a limit on future increases in medical care payments which it will make. This will be done even before the final cutoff. It gives me a great deal of concern.
There is nobody in this House who does not appreciate that medical costs, along with gasoline costs, energy costs, food costs, and so on, have gone up and will continue to do so, hopefully on a reducing scale. However, under Bill C-68 the 50-50 provision is being changed. In the first year the federal government will pay only 13 per cent of any increase in their 50 per cent. The second year they will only pay an increased 10 per cent of their 50 per cent, regardless of whether the costs go up by 90 per cent or 40 per cent. The limit on federal government involvement will be 15 per cent next year and 10 per cent the year after, regardless of the inflation factor.
In my province, which does not have the fundamental economic resources of others and therefore cannot afford even a modified medicare program, there is great concern about what this restriction will do to basic medical coverage, let alone any so-called rich plan. I have not yet heard the justification for the 13 per cent and 10 per cent. We then get to the third year, the real nigger in the woodpile. The restriction on government involvement will be done by order in council. That is the cabinet, meeting in the East Block, perhaps having time to think in a constructive way, but more often meeting in a crisis situation at the end of the session or at 11 o'clock at night, not able to give full ventilation to something so fundamental. Who knows what figure they will come up with for the third year? It will not just be a damper but a blanket on medical care payments to all Canadians.
Through the work of the standing committee that reviewed this bill, as well as the work of the hon. member for Athabasca, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco), and the co-operation of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde)-at least at that stage- the third year kicker will have some ventilation because of an amendment introduced by the minister through the persuasion of opposition members. It will not be changed, but at least there will be two days' debate in the House of Commons with regard to the order in council. The effect of the 13 per cent limit next year and the 10 per cent limit the second year might already have put medical care programs, in all provinces, in such a state of chaos that I do not know if a two-day debate will be sufficient to point out to the government all that will be necessary. Hopefully, there

June 25, 1976
Medical Care Act
will be an election before that time and this proposal can be looked at in a much more constructive way.
Bearing in mind that the medical care program, having seduced or by mental enticement got all the provinces involved, some against their will, more than ten years ago, the government's unilateral withdrawal has done a great disservice to federal-provincial relations. This is one of the reasons why there is great reluctance in many provincial capitals about approving the Prime Minister's pet project of patriating the constitution and bringing back the BNA Act so that Canada can finally be a full-fledged nation in his eyes.
I do not think the Prime Minister fully appreciates the fundamental lack of faith or confidence that Canadians have, extending even to provincial governments of the same political stripe, and there are a few of those left across the country, a couple in Atlantic Canada, and they will rue the day down there; you do not have to be in Atlantic Canada very long before turning on the TV and finding the Liberal premier of Prince Edward Island or Nova Scotia saying things that might have come right from the front benches of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. That is the type of thing which is going on because of that unilateral approach, quite apart from the details of this bill and how they will affect a program as fundamental as medicare.
I do not want to take too much of the time of the House right now. I can understand very well any admonition that we should move on to the point. All I can do is to conclude more or less where I began. A fellow called the right hon. Wee Willie Mackenzie King who used to look at crystal balls for guidance, so we are told, did lead this country into some very emancipated social legislation of which Liberals have every right to be proud, notwithstanding the very genial Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fleming). Long before he was born, the Liberal party, like the Conservative party, had in its platform something called medicare, which the Liberals supposedly first put forward in 1914.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was 1919.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I don't want to go back that far. I was not even born then. The fact is that some time thereafter Mackenzie King, looking in his crystal ball and getting advice from all sources, did talk about a medicare program, and the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFar-lane), as a Liberal member and a sincere one at that, must really wonder whether this is true liberalism in the true sense of the word, with a small "1", when you go back on a program you said you believed in since 1919, one you talked about at election after election. Mackenzie King, looking down here from above through the crystal ball on another one-way mirror would be shaking his head in shame at what the present so-called Liberal party is doing.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-68 has many lessons for the Canadian people. One of them surely must be that you cannot trust a Liberal.
In the 1974 general election many workers voted Liberal because the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) swore up and

down and across the country that wage and price controls were wrong, discriminatory, and ineffective. A few months after he was re-elected he went back on his word and introduced a wage and wage control program-it was not a wage and price control program. And the people were betrayed. In this bill the provinces, and ultimately the people, will be betrayed in another fundamental way. The provinces are betrayed because the federal government has gone back on a solemn pledge to pay half the cost of medicare, and the people are betrayed because if and when this bill passes they will receive a kind of medicare inferior to that to which they have been accustomed. It is a backward step, but it is consistent with the actions of a government which lacks commitment to the legislation it undertakes.
The Liberals sniff the wind, discover which way it is going, and then jump on the bandwagon. In this case the bandwagon is one which will strike a sour note as the Canadian people realize what is being done to the standard of health care they have enjoyed in the past.
We in this party have fought tooth and nail against this legislation because of its discriminatory, negative implications not only for Confederation and the principle of equality of treatment from east to west, but because of what it will do to standards of health care especially as they apply to low-income Canadians. For years and years this party and its predecessor, the CCF, fought to bring about a program of universal hospital and medical care so that Canadians, irrespective of their financial situation, could have access to one of the most fundamental human rights, the right to good health care. Surely this is the measure of any civilized society; we do not say there shall be one standard of health care for those who can afford it and another for those who cannot.
It was a premier of Saskatchewan, my hon. friend from Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, who led the fight for this principle. First they had universal free hospital care across the province, and then medicare. He fought against tremendous odds, tremendous pressures by medical lobbies and others. He even faced personal defeat believing that his cause was right. We carry on that fight today because we believe the principle of medicare, having taken so long to become established, ought not now to be undermined by the government with its lack of commitment to human rights.
I was proud to say I was a Canadian and to point to our medicare program and say to any visitor that it was one of the finest in the world. If this bill passes I shall no longer be able to do that; I shall no longer be able to say to the five million people in this country who live below the poverty line that they can expect adequate health care. The result of this bill will be that provinces will no longer be able to staff and maintain the system of health and medical care to which we are accustomed without implementing fees to be imposed every time a person visits a doctor, or, on the other hand, raising taxes to maintain the standard of the program at its present level. It is an indication to me that the government, when it comes down to the crunch, always puts the dollar sign before the welfare of the ordinary Canadian.
June 25, 1976

In this legislation the federal government is going back on a solemn assurance that it gave the provinces that it would pay half the cost of medicare in this country. The minister of health has been arguing that medicare costs have been escalating and that the only way he can bring them down is to change the funding formula. I dispute that claim. There are other ways to reduce the costs than arbitrarily changing the basic formula of the program. The minister of health has struck a severe blow at those poorer provinces which were reluctant to join the program in the first place because they knew that it would be very difficult to pay the costs. They are now left out on a limb because the federal government has gone back on its word.
Of course health care costs have been increasing. Anyone who was naive enough at the beginning of the program to expect these costs not to increase surely does not deserve to be in elected office. The whole point of a universal program is to get people to a doctor or to a hospital at the onset of an illness so that they may be given adequate treatment which will prevent the illness from becoming more severe, with consequently less chance of curing the illness. In the past all too often the tendency was, especially among low income people, not to visit a doctor if they felt ill but to try to hang on in the hope that things would improve. These people could not afford to go to a doctor or a hospital; hence in the majority of cases they waited too long, the illness became more complicated, and the chance of recovery was less.
It seems to me that one of the fundamental principles of the medicare program was that of prevention; that a person would see a doctor early enough before the illness became complicated. Many Canadians have taken advantage of this opportunity and have been seeing doctors regularly. As a result we have a higher standard of health in this country than we had prior to the introduction of this program, so the government cannot use the argument that this increase in cost has taken it by surprise. The increase in cost is due, in part, to greater usage of the program, which was one of the fundamental goals of the program, a very laudable goal at that.
The problem has been that, with increased use of the program, our institutions have not adapted to the changing situation. Far too many of our expensive, regular treatment hospital beds are being used to care for people who should be handled in less expensive, chronic care or outpatient facilities. Part of the rise in the cost of the program, besides greater use of the program, has surely been the failure of provincial governments, hospital boards, and the medical profession to adapt to changing circumstances and to look for cost saving measures in areas other than the traditional treatment of illness. This is something I want to come back to later because I think it is an avenue for saving that can be vigorously pursued by provincial health care programs and which would eliminate this kind of arbitrary action on the part of the federal government in changing the funding formula.
What worries me at this point, Mr. Speaker, is the formula that the federal government seems to be coming up with. Instead of saying that, no matter what the escalation in cost is, the federal government will pay half, it has put forward the proposal that it will keep its contributions in
Medical Care Act
line with the annual growth in the Gross National Product in this country. I cannot for the life of me figure out the reasoning of the bureaucrat who dreamt that one up. In other words what the government is saying is this, that in times of recession, such as now, if the economy is growing at a slower rate, then Canadians must be sick less. What an absurd proposition. As if viruses will stop at the border of this country and we can say that, because our economy is stagnant, we must not have any increased incidence of 'flu, polio, or what have you. How ludicrous, how absolutely absurd, to tie health care costs to the growth in the gross national quotient! I just do not understand the reasoning behind this proposition. However, all this may make sense if the House accepts my original premise that it is the dollar sign, not the health of Canadians, that concerns the government most.
I do not want to see this country go back to the situation that obtains with our neighbour to the south which does not have a universal medicare program. In the United States private insurance plans call for very high premiums, higher than any premiums that Canadians are paying for their nation-wide health program administered by the provinces. I do not want to see Canadians face the situation that one Canadian faced when he was visiting New York and his daughter became ill. She was taken to a United States hospital, but before they would admit the girl for treatment the admitting desk told them, since they did not belong to any American program, that until they could investigate the Canadian plan to which the father belonged he would have to deposit a $1,500 cheque.
We cannot go backwards, Mr. Speaker, and I do not think that Canadians want to go backwards. I fear that most Canadians do not understand the implications of this legislation which surely will mean a return in some form or another to those days when the kind of health care treatment you got depended on the size of your pay cheque, when the kind of doctor or specialist you engaged was contingent upon your own personal wealth. In a way, Mr. Speaker, that is the sort of thing that is going to happen now.
Since the federal government is not going to maintain its share of the cost, the provinces will have to cut back on the services that they have been providing, or being to implement deterrent fees, or raise taxes, or pass other kinds of punitive measures that will affect the ordinary individual as surely as if he had to pay directly every time he or a member of his family goes to a hospital.
The implications of this change in funding are very far reaching, and it seems that medicare is to be the first victim. I have warned Canadians that once this occurs in respect of medicare it will not stop there. We are going to see cutbacks in federal shared-cost agreements not only in medicare but in university funding, in equalization payments, and in other things, which surely is what Confederation is all about, that is, providing a standard of living and a standard of service that are not discriminatory because you live in Newfoundland as opposed to Ontario, or Manitoba as opposed to British Columbia.
We can begin to see what is taking place if we look at medicare legislation and other statements that have been

June 25, 1976
Medical Care Act
coming out of the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau's) office. One just has to look back to the June, 1975, budget to begin to see what I mean when I say the federal government is starting to back off from its cost sharing programs. We find since that budget that the government has put ceilings on federal contributions to cost sharing programs as part of its over-all restraint program and is forcing the provincial governments to pick up more and more of the costs of these programs.
We can trace the beginning of this to earlier than the 1975 budget. In 1972 under tax reform the provincial share of income tax growth was reduced from 28 per cent to 23.4 per cent. To make up for this the revenue guarantee formula was drawn up. It was designed to protect provincial tax revenues for the five-year period from 1972 to 1977. At the most recent finance ministers' conference back in April the federal government announced it was changing this guarantee.
The estimates projected a loss to the provinces of some $800 million to $900 million as a result of the change in the formula. In fact we find that in 1975-76, and that was the first year any funds were actually paid out, the provinces estimated how much money they would receive under the revenue guarantee and budgeted accordingly. In 1974 indexing was unilaterally introduced by the federal government. This measure cut significantly into provincial as well as federal income tax revenue.
Since June, 1975, we have seen a limit placed on the equalization of oil and gas revenues, a 15 per cent limit in the growth of federal contributions for post-secondary education, limits in this bill on medicare, withdrawals from services to treaty Indians, cutbacks in funds for police protection, and in manpower training and regional economic development.
This bill is not just one isolated example; it is part of a growing pattern of federal cutbacks in cost sharing with the provinces. Every Canadian living in each of the provinces across Canada is going to suffer in one way or another. If this bill passes, the provinces will not only lose money in the medicare field they will be losing money in other cost sharing programs as well. This will be an added pressure and burden on the provincial governments if they want to maintain medicare at the same level as it has existed in the past, because they will be required to make some choices.
The federal government is cutting back in the area of equalization payments, in manpower training, and the provinces have to make up that difference with limited revenue, especially under the new tax sharing formulae. They have to get that money from somewhere, and the temptation may well be to get it from the budgets allotted to medicare.
It is shocking to realize that at the recent finance minister's conference of 1975-76 the ten provinces lost $1 billion in potential revenue as a result of just three of the federal government's actions; limiting equalization of oil-gas revenues, indexing, and changes in the revenue guarantee formula. This figure is expected to increase to $1,250 million or $1,500 million in the years 1976-77. Any province faced with that kind of cutback in revenue will be in a precarious state.

The only way the provinces can raise revenue, if the federal government is not going to provide it, is by increasing the taxes on the citizens of the provinces. That will hurt those people living in the provinces that are less wealthy than others. I think particularly of the maritime provinces, Quebec, some areas of northern Ontario, northern Manitoba and northern Saskatchewan. These provinces have a limited potential for raising revenue and they can only squeeze so much out of the people. The only alternative left to them is to cut back on the programs, and that will mean we will have gone back on those great recommendations of the Rowell-Sirois Royal Commission in the early 1940's. That commission said we must have equalization of services and standards of living for Canadians from one end of the country to the other.
If this bill passes, with the changes in revenue sharing the federal government proposed at the recent first ministers' conference, it can only lead to a balkanization of Canada, dividing it up into first, second, and third class regions, and first, second, and third class citizens. Surely that is a backward step and a negation of the whole principle of co-operative federalism which is what this country should be all about.
If the bill passes I am certain we are going to see deterrent fees levied by provinces. How else can they raise the money to meet increased costs? This will mean to the average citizen that any time he visits the doctor there will be an extra fee charged, maybe $5, or maybe $10. Everytime he gets an X-ray there will likewise be an additional fee charged. Every kind of service will have a price tag with the cost coming out of the individual's pocket, no matter what his or her ability to pay.
The beauty of the medicare system was that the revenue came from general taxation, or personal income tax which is based on the ability to pay. The deterrent fee, just like sales tax, is a negative cost not based on that principle. The deterrent fee to someone at the poverty level, with a family of four, which is about $7,600 per year, is a much more severe penalty than it is to a family with an income in the range of $15,000 to $50,000.
If we move to deterrent fees-and I regret to say that the provinces will probably go that way-then we are back to the stage at which we were prior to the introduction of these health care schemes, that is, health treatment based on the pocket books, not on the universal principle of equal treatment. Surely we have fought too long to go back to that situation. If the provinces do not move to deterrent fees then the only other way they can increase revenue is to increase the premiums for medicare, and that means that the annual premium will have to go up, and for certain provinces, such as Ontario which do not take medicare costs out of general income tax revenue but levy a premium on each individual or each family, which is regressive, those costs of course will go up. It will mean an added hardship to those residents in the province who have to pay increased premiums by the direct premium method at a time when inflation is continuing to rise and at the same time as people's wages are controlled by the anti-inflation program.
June 25, 1976

We can have deterrent fees, or we can have increased premiums for medicare, or provinces can choose the third route, that is, to cut back on services. Of course that is the most arbitrary and cruel method of all. We have had a foretaste of that in my province of Ontario where the government, faced with escalating costs, rather than initiate a study to look at ways of becoming more efficient, to look at ways of taking people out of expensive regular hospital beds and putting them in out-patient clinics, arbitrarily decided that it would close down small community hospitals or reduce the number of beds available in larger urban hospitals as a means of saving money in its health care system. This was done in Ontario before the passing of this bill and the change in the funding formula. If we see the province under that kind of pressure at this stage, how much more drastic will those cut-backs be a few years down the road when the effects of this act come into force?
Again I say this Liberal government is undoing what the provincial governments, especially in Saskatchewan, have struggled to achieve for so many years. But there is a way around the arbitrary cut-back and change of the federal funding formula. This government can be a leader in promoting preventive medicine if it wanted to, in developing programs that could be a model for provincial governments to follow, and in improving the standard of health of Canadians across the country. But we only see tokenism on the part of the federal government when it comes to initiating preventive medicine.
I refer to what has happened in a community outside my riding, nearby in northern Ontario at Elliot Lake, where the uranium mines are located, and where evidence has now come to light of serious problems among the miners due to silicosis because of the lack of federal leadership. It is a mine which comes under the control of the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada, a federal agency. I am referring to the lack of leadership of the government in ensuring that proper safety and environmental standards are adhered to in that mine.
If the federal government is serious about demonstrating its commitment to preventive medicine, why has it not revised and upgraded the standards of health and environment in uranium mines across this country? Elliot Lake is now undergoing a tremendous expansion. The steelworkers' union there has submitted proposals to the Atomic Energy Control Board outlining its concerns about the same kind of environmental mistakes and health hazards being repeated because the company, in its expansion, is not required to put in adequate and proper ventilation systems, to recycle polluted water, and to bury contaminated waste.
We see growing evidence of industrial cancers across the land in many occupations, not only in uranium mining but in asbestos plants and in work places where dust is high. Dr. Selikoff, a renowned American doctor, has documented this in case studies. He states that as little as two weeks' exposure to high dust levels in asbestos plants and certain other mines, even for people conducting roofing with hot tar, can lead to the development of cancers some 20 years later after the dormant period takes place. Yet we do not have national standards, proper environmental standards in the work place, nor do we have a government which seems to be serious about the proliferation of alcohol and
Medical Care Act
tobacco advertising, which creates a demand for these products which have been shown to lead to great health problems throughout the country.
The incidence of lung cancer and alcoholism is growing, and yet the federal government still allows advertisers of these products to deduct the costs of advertising for income tax purposes. If this government were serious about reducing the incidence of lung cancer and alcoholism, it could easily amend the Income Tax Act to make it less attractive for these industries to carry out the kind of advertising that promotes excessive consumption of these items.
If this government were serious about reducing health care costs, it would not be cutting back its funding of medical research programs. Example after example can be shown of this Liberal government's policy saying "Do as I say, not as I do." It has not demonstrated its serious commitment to preventive medicine. It has taken the easier route of arbitrarily reneging on the solemn commitment that it has to medicare and sloughing off the burden on to the provinces, which of course have less room in which to manoeuvre so far as revenue is concerned.
I say again and again that this bill is a backward, regressive step. All Canadians will suffer as a result. We will have a lower standard of health care. We will have a system of health care that becomes increasingly geared to one's ability to pay rather than to the fact that one is a citizen of Canada and, as such, deserves adequate and affordable health care. I think this is a regressive and backward bill, as I said, and I wish that some of the Liberal backbenchers who represent constituents from different parts of the country would be honest enough to admit to them that a few years down the road they will suffer because their Liberal majority will force this inequitous piece of legislation through the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been some discussions among the House leaders

June 25, 1976
Canadian Wheat Board Act (No. 2) about the undesirability of having votes on Friday, and it has been agreed that the vote will be called at a time to be decided after consultation among the House leaders.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that the vote will be taken at a later time after agreement between the House leaders?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is so ordered.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Like six months later.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT (NO. 2) MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR ELECTION OF MEMBERS OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Mitchell William Sharp: that Bill C-88, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act (No. 2), be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, as I rise at third reading of this bill I point out that we intend to allow the bill to go through, but I do not think it should go through without making some comments.
The purpose of the legislation is to set up a committee to advise the Canadian Wheat Board, with which I agree, and there is a provision in the bill which stipulates what the advisory committee can do. There are also certain regulations established by the governor in council. One error in this bill is that it allows too much control to be retained by the governor in council and not enough control is given to the advisory committee.
After all, the advisory committee is made up of producers, and it is in their interest to be on the committee. I think it was brought forcibly to our attention in the standing committee that when members of parliament from the area served by the Canadian Wheat Board, that is, the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Peace River area of British Columbia, wished to bring in legislation, it was agreed to by the minister, but it was turned down by other hon. members not from that area. This raises the very fundamental point that it is dangerous to allow politics to become involved in the operation of a board such as the Canadian Wheat Board. We have seen that happen in the past. We have seen manipulation of pay-outs prior to the end of the year.


Ralph Goodale: Nonsense.


Thomas Gordon Towers: The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Good-ale) says that is nonsense. He has not been around here very long. He does not remember that the Senate had to bring in a bill which curtailed the actions of the manipulators. If all control of the Canadian Wheat Board were given to the board and its advisers, there would be very little

reason for the governor in council to have that control. I would far rather have the chief commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board or the chairman of the advisory committee stating what the initial payments are to be and what the final payments are to be. I think it would be better if they were doing it rather than the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.
I feel that there is a misconception of what actually takes place within the operation of that board. I should stress that the Wheat Board pays its own way. It pays its own expenses, and I am sure that the consumers and taxpayers of Canada feel that the final or initial payments come out of the federal treasury, which is not the case. I am sure the hon. member for Assiniboia would agree with me that it comes out of the farmers' own money.
We must never underestimate the value of this income to the Canadian economy. The other day at report state I stressed that it gives great assistance to our economic well-being in counteracting our deficit balance of payments, which must never be overlooked, but also must not be taken for granted because inclement weather can have a great deal to do with the income of the prairie grain producer. Perhaps many Canadian taxpayers have to contend only with the Canadian government, but the western grain producer has to contend with the weather as well as the Canadian government. This has proven to be of fundamental importance. Reports coming out of central Europe and England indicate that that part of the world is undergoing a severe drought which is having a devastating impact on its economic well-being. That could well be the case in Canada if this happened to us, so therefore we must consider as carefully as we can the economic outlook of the western grain producer and afford him the opportunity of participating to the greatest extent possible in the handling of his business.
As the years go by the prairie grain producer is becoming better informed, better educated, and better able to look after himself, as long as he does not run into too much government interference. I fear that there is a tendency in the present administration to interfere to a great degree with the Canadian Wheat Board as a selling agency. The board was initially set up as a selling agency.
I think there are few in this House who remember the years when producers who were not very well off had to sell their grain in the fall at a low price because they had to have money to pay their debts. This was the reason the Canadian Wheat Board came into existence under the administration of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett. The bad things about his administration are remembered, but seldom is he given credit for the good things he did, and establishing the Canadian Wheat Board was one of them. In those years the person who was able to hold his grain until the spring or the following summer sometimes was able to get two or three times as much for it, and that increased the deficit balance which then existed between one producer and another. However, through the marketing agency of the Canadian Wheat Board all producers now receive pretty well the same amount, provided the grade and quality are the same.
June 25, 1976

One of the benefits of this bill is that it will allow for the governor in council to set up a pool primarily of malting barley. There has been a great discrepancy in the past year with relation to grades in malting barley and it has caused confusion among producers. It was not fair for those who had No. 3CW to receive 80 cents more than the person who had No. 1 Feed. We all realize that the margin was very narrow-perhaps a half pound per bushel differential between one grade and another. This has caused a problem for a lot of producers, some of whom lose $2,000 on a carload of barley. This is not fair. This protection is one of the good aspects of the bill.
If the bill had gone further and given more control to the advisory board I could certainly have given it my full support. As it is I feel the governor in council is retaining too much control and that the Canadian Wheat Board is still open to manipulation by either the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board or the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan).
Just this week the Minister of Agriculture was in Red Deer, and I should like to read a little bit of the speech he made there.


An hon. Member:: Where is that?


Thomas Gordon Towers: Red Deer is in the very heart of Alberta- far western Canada. It is the heart. Here is a portion of the speech made by the Minister of Agriculture:
Another federal policy with implication for Alberta hog producers is the domestic feed grain policy. We announced some changes in this policy three weeks ago.
When the minister said "we" I presume he was referring to the announcement made in this House by himself and the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. He went on:
Effective August 1, the Canadian Wheat Board will be offering feed grains at corn-competitive prices worked back from Montreal. And, feed freight assistance is being reduced or eliminated to British Columbia, Ontario and western Quebec.
When the Minister of Agriculture and the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board made this announcement they said it was going to do away with the inequity that existed between feeding in eastern Canada and western Canada. Feeders in western Canada are now beginning to realize that such is not the case. This is not working out that way, and we on this side of the House said at the time that it would not work. What is happening is that western grain producers are going to receive 50 cents per bushel less for the grain that goes to the eastern market; yet it is not going to make the grain any cheaper to the western feeder-not a penny.
I would be prepared to debate this issue with the hon. member for Assiniboia or either minister on the figures available, because we have worked it out. Mr. Turner, the President of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, agrees that the only thing it is going to do is give western grain producers 50 cents per bushel less for the grain that is fed to the eastern market.
I feel that unless a great deal of caution is exercised there is danger that the Canadian Wheat Board could become an agency of provision rather than a selling
Canadian Wheat Board Act (No. 2) agency. If it is going to serve its purpose in the best interests of the producer, those people who are commissioners and those who are members of the advisory committee must have complete freedom.
I really have no quarrel with western grain filling the requirements of the eastern feeder-not at all. I realize and recognize the value of the feeding industry in Canada; nevertheless I have a concern that the advisory committee of the Canadian Wheat Board as well as the commissioners could hamstring this policy which has been announced by the Minister of Agriculture and the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board because it is tied to corn. The price of western grain is tied to corn f.o.b. Montreal.
I have no quarrel whatsoever with the element of competition, but if eastern feeders can buy United States corn from Chicago cheaper than they can buy western grain-at less money than the western producer can get if he ships it to the west coast or through the port of Churchill-I have to question the economics of it. It is not taking anything away from the eastern feeder as long as his requirements are met, but I do not see why we should throw money down the drain to fill a market that could adequately be filled from some other source.
I am sure the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board recognizes that you can put corn on the Montreal market cheaper and with less freight involved than that which comes from western Canada. It takes $11 a ton to move it from Thunder Bay to Montreal, but only $9 a ton from Toledo to Montreal, and that adds up to a lot of money.
Another thing we have to deal with is the St. Lawrence Seaway charges. There is no doubt that the St. Lawrence Seaway is going to try to increase those charges. At the present time the Canadian taxpayer is picking up those charges that were created by the movement of freight-not necessarily grain but also ore and all other freight that goes through the system. If the total cost were charged to the grain, instead of paying one and a half cents per bushel for Seaway charges alone, we would be paying five cents per bushel. That is just the lock charges and not the freight charges because the latter run at 27 cents a bushel. However, an increase would be required to compensate for the differential.
I feel therefore that much greater consideration should be given to the advisory committee and that their terms of reference should be enlarged. I think they could have a greater input into the operation of the Canadian Wheat Board than can the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board or the governor in council. After all, that is the reason they are elected. They have the confidence of the producers and this is their sole purpose in being there. It is not so with the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board because he operates in a dual capacity. As Minister of Transport he is trying to do away with the Crowsnest freight rates which the grain producers want to retain. No minister can serve two parties, and I am sure he would be the first to realize that.
The other day I tried to find out from the minister what he meant when he spoke of doing away with the Crowsnest freight rates-what he meant by "some other way". He relied on a speech he made in Edmonton a year and a half ago. Actually he is just living in the past. He has had

June 25, 1976
Canadian Wheat Board Act (No. 2)
his day and he is not resolving the problems; in fact with what is happening in the air at the present time I think he is creating more problems than he is solving.
I think this bill errs in that it is definitely not giving enough power to the advisory committee. After all these people are wise; they are smart; they are producers, and should have considerable input with regard to the wellbeing of the Canadian Wheat Board.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to take the floor after the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) who made such wise remarks. He showed clearly the problem relating to Bill C-88. It is a surprising bill because in many ways it is pretty good, which is the surprising part. What a surprise that the Liberals should introduce a good bill! But that surprise tends to disappear when one realizes that all the good parts of the bill are the result of comments made by members of the opposition.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Hear, hear!


Arnold John Malone: But the Liberals who are known as humanitarians did not want to surprise anyone too severely; therefore they included certain inequities in the bill to make it seem normal.
I want to focus attention on these inequities, and focus attention on the motion proposed by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) with respect to the advisory committee to the Wheat Board. Basically the hon. member's suggestion proposed a guarantee in legislation that the advisory committee shall be made up of farmers or producers.
I challenge government members, especially the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), to tell the House what they have against farmers exercising influence on farming business. Was not the Canadian Wheat Board set up in order to sell our grain on foreign markets? Does it not sell the product of the farmer? Therefore, why should not the farmer expect a guarantee in legislation to the effect that the advisory board will be made up of farm producers? It is only normal that the members of an industry want to look after themselves. The legislation ought to provide for the advisory board to be made up only of farmers and that ought to be spelled out.
It is interesting to note what has happened in this country with regard to the input of farmers into Canadian society. When Canada first became a confederate nation, 95 per cent of its people were rural; in essence, most of them were farm people. Today the reverse is the case. Approximately 85 per cent of all Canadians live in cities; that percentage, according to the Lithwick report, will become even larger by the year 2000. In the past decade we lost from the land 170,000 farm people. This means that, at this time in our history, the input into our society of the farming industry is becoming progressively smaller.
It is important to recognize that while the proportion of farmers in Canadian society is becoming progressively smaller, farming is still the most important industry, both in terms of economics and in terms of social well-being. At no time has an advanced culture not been preceded by

advanced agriculture. No society in the world has ever developed and advanced without a firm agricultural foundation. All societies depend on a well developed agricultural system. Despite this, the present government is unwilling to guarantee in legislation the right of the farmer to have some say in matters pertaining to the administration of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Farming is a business; the farmer is in the business of food production. Food comes from two sources, soil and water. There are no others. According to United Nations standards, 20 per cent of all Canadians are poor. On the international scene, of course, the incidence of total poverty is much more severe. With regard to the international scene, every day 12,000 children under the age of five die of starvation. Four fifths of this world suffers from malnutrition. In most countries of the world the individual daily calory intake of the people is less than one fifth of the normal intake of the individual Canadian. Therefore the business of food production is one of our most important businesses. Agriculture is our most important industry. There is no advanced society which does not have access to a well developed, progressive agricultural industry.
This piece of legislation purports to make certain adjustments with regard to the Canadian Wheat Board. While I commend some clauses in the bill, I suggest that it is folly not to broaden the scope of the legislation in order to permit farmers to exercise power through the advisory committee. I suggest that enshrined in the legislation should be the provision calling for members of the advisory committee to be farm producers.
It is important that farm producers throughout the Canadian Wheat Board growing area should have confidence in the institution to which they sell their grain and some powers with which to direct and manage their own affairs. But that apparently is not how the government proceeds traditionally; it is not concerned about the rights of individuals. It is concerned about imposing management. In other words, it puts a society based on structure ahead of one based on people's choices. That is why farmers and certain organizations have resisted legislation of this type so strongly.
An order in council does not allow farmers to put their case before a standing committee. I ask the government, why is it afraid to have farm people appear before the standing committee in case changes are to be made in the legislation?


Steve Eugene Paproski: They don't like farmers.


Arnold John Malone: If they were willing to guarantee with legislation that farm people have the right to run their own affairs, they would have nothing to fear.
It is evident that this bill shows a distrust on the part of the government of the farm people of this country. Apparently the government thinks farmers do not have the wherewithal to run their own affairs. That should not be the government's attitude. It should adopt a more trusting attitude to those who have so capably allowed us to achieve our present high standard of living.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The way the government treats farmers is shameful.
June 25, 1976


Arnold John Malone: The minister in charge of the Wheat Board agreed, when appearing before the Standing Committee on Agriculture, that the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Moose Jaw was acceptable. Actually he said that he agreed with the spirit of that amendment, agreed that there should be some guarantee that farmers would be on the advisory board. Unfortunately, ten government members, not one of whom represents ridings within the Canadian Wheat Board growing area, at a later date, not knowing the minister's position, chose to vote against the amendment. That was unfortunate. Farm people again are being jeopardized because people from outside the Canadian Wheat Board growing area have made a decision without understanding the agricultural industry. They did not extend their trust to those in that industry. Really it is not a matter of whether farm people should be on the board; it is a matter of whether the government is willing to extend trust to farmers. The other part of the question is, why is the government so distrustful? Why is it not willing to let farmers have some persuasive say in the management of their own affairs?
We need to reverse trends in this country. Instead of building structures and institutions and imposing them on people, it is high time we encouraged Canadians to take a more active and responsible role in the administration of their own lives.
I conclude by saying that while I think most of this bill is satisfactory, I wish the government would see fit to extend more trust and responsibility to farmers within the Canadian Wheat Board growing area.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I should like for a few moments this afternoon to speak generally on Bill C-88, but before I do that may I deal with the arguments advanced earlier by the two hon. gentlemen who have just spoken.
In particular I refer to the argument they are making about the amendment which was proposed in committee and later at report stage by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) having to do with the restrictions which that particular member wanted to place in this legislation. It is interesting to note the contrast between what the hon. member for Moose Jaw was in fact proposing and the rhetoric of the two hon. members who have just spoken.
The point is that that amendment would have restricted the range of choice of farmers in selecting people to represent them upon the advisory committee of the Canadian Wheat Board. The amendment would have restricted their freedom of choice. It would cut down their range of choice. The argument presented to the House in opposition to that amendment, the argument which persuaded itself to the House, was that we should leave the range of options broad and general for farmers when making their selection of producers or others to represent them.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) a question. Will the hon. member permit a question?


Ralph Goodale: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.
Canadian Wheat Board Act (No. 2)


Thomas Gordon Towers: If it was a bad amendment, why did the minister in charge of the wheat board agree with it in committee?


Arnold John Malone: That was my question too.


Ralph Goodale: In the committee hearings that were cited in this House when the bill was debated at the report stage, hon. members opposite chose only to read those selected portions of the committee minutes which supported their case. They stopped short of reading the full context of what was said.


Arnold John Malone: You were not there.


Ralph Goodale: When you read all of those minutes, as I have read them very carefully word for word, you find out very clearly what transpired in the committee. The members of that committee drew to the attention of the committee certain aspects that were being overlooked in the amendment being proposed by the hon. member for Moose Jaw.
The point is this. The amendment would have restricted the freedom of choice and the range of options of producers. The committee, and later this House, opted at the initial stage of establishing this new election procedure, for a broad range of choice for farmers. The ultimate protection is in the legislation. When an election is held to select the advisers to the Canadian Wheat Board, that election is squarely, fully, and solely in the hands of producers. They are the ones who have the franchise. They are the ones who will make the ultimate decision. I have every confidence in the ability, capacity, and good judgment of farmers that when they exercise their franchise they will make the right decision in their own best interest. They do not need this kind of artificial protection which would limit the freedom and range of choice they would otherwise have.
In Bill C-88 this House of Commons is being called upon to amend in two specific and postive respects the legislation which forms the foundation of the system of marketing for most of our western Canadian grain production, namely, the Canadian Wheat Board Act. It is clearly understood that these changes are being proposed in direct response to the clear expression of opinion of prairie farmers.
Primarily this bill seeks to achieve two quite separate objectives. First, clauses 1 and 3 of Bill C-88 deal essentially with the provision of a permanent basis for the election of advisers by prairie grain producers to the Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee.
Second, clause 4 of the bill makes provision for the establishment of separate marketing pools, within the wheat board structure, for certain selected and accepted grains, such as malting barley.
The remaining sections of the bill, namely clauses 2 and 5, are of a technical housekeeping nature, unrelated to the two major amendments I have just mentioned, which correct errors in wording or minor anomalies which presently appear in the act.
As we conclude this debate, may I comment just briefly on the two essential highlights contained in Bill C-88; first, the matter of a separate CWB marketing pool for malting

Canadian Wheat Board Act (No. 2)
barley, and so on. Presently the Canadian Wheat Board Act requires the pooling of proceeds from all sales of wheat, oats, and barley in their respective pool accounts, the deduction of all expenses incurred in marketing each grain, and the same payment per grade to all producers. For example, the sales revenue for No. 1 feed barley which is selected and accepted for malting must be pooled by the board with the revenue from all sales of No. 1 feed barley irrespective of its end use. That is how the bill reads now. That gives a nutshell explanation of the problem which farmers saw and the government recognized in bringing forth this amendment.
Under the amendment, a separate pool for barley that has been selected and accepted for malting purposes will ensure that only those costs incurred in marketing malting barley are charged to that pool. With a separate pool, those producers who deliver selected grains such as malting barley will receive the full benefit of any premiums obtained by the board for it. That is the gist of the amendment dealing with the separate pool. Naturally enough, in recent months at least, western producers have been anxious to see the wheat board begin to keep separate accounts. The government, through the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, committed itself to respond to that concern. Accordingly we have this amendment. Under its terms, and as a result of preparatory accounting work already done by the wheat board, it will be possible to treat deliveries of malting barley in this current 1975-76 crop year as a separate pool account, that is, the amendment, when it receives parliamentary approval, is intended to be retroactive to the beginning of this crop year, August 1, 1975.
The second major amendment in Bill C-88, that dealing with the wheat board advisory committee election, follows upon a very successful experiment conducted last year in which the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board provided prairie producers with a first opportunity to elect for themselves this most important advisory group to the board. This, of course, is the aspect of the legislation which was dealt with in the form of amendments at the report stage.
Under the present terms of the Wheat Board Act, the members of the advisory committee are in fact appointed by the governor in council with no provision for their direct selection by producers.
The minister, the Government of Canada, and many prairie producers have believed for some considerable time that the 11 member advisory committee should be chosen by farmers themselves having a direct vote. It was with this thought in mind that the minister authorized the first election of the members of the advisory committee in 1975. The widespread interest of producers in the process is illustrated by the fact that 67 individuals were nominated to seek election in the 11 electoral districts. The campaigns were vigorous and enthusiastic. The successful candidates in that election were subsequently appointed to the committee by the governor in council as technically required by the act.
The new bill will establish and guarantee the electoral process for the advisory committee in the Canadian Wheat Board Act itself. Under the amendment the board will exercise the direction and supervision of the administra-

tive process in all future elections. The governor in council will be empowered to enact regulations prescribing the procedural and electoral rules for the election, and the rates of remuneration for expenses incurred by the members in the proper discharge of their duties.
The next election of the advisory committee will be in 1978, and every fourth year thereafter, according to the new amendment.
As I mentioned at the outset, Mr. Speaker, these amendments have been presented to the House in direct response to the representations of producers and producer organizations which have indicated a genuine desire to see the electoral process for the advisory committee enshrined in the statute itself, and to see in the interests of equity a separate pool for selected grades of grains such as malting barley.
May I close, Mr. Speaker, by taking a moment or two to put these latest amendments to the Wheat Board Act into context, into the context of the exciting and impressive development of the grains industry and relevant Government of Canada grains policy over the past six or seven years under the leadership of the present responsible minister who has carried, since 1969, the fundamental responsibility for the development and co-ordination of all policies and programs of the Government of Canada relating to western grain.
For the record, here is a partial list of some of the things which have been achieved since the early difficult days in 1969 and 1970 when prairie grain producers were facing one of their most depressing periods, certainly the most difficult era in recent decades.
For example, we have seen the introduction of expanded credit facilities and long term government guarantees to enable the Wheat Board to pursue new markets. Vigorous efforts have been made for the first time, to break into the world barley market where we had never seriously been before 1970. There was the annual commitment of $10 million toward a new market development fund to enhance grain marketing opportunities. New research facilities have been established through the Canada Department of Agriculture, a new crop science division at the University of Saskatchewan, and a "protein-oil-starch" pilot plant in Saskatoon to help find news way of processing grain and oil seeds.
I would remind hon. members of the establishment of the two-price wheat program, of the substantial increases in the level of available cash advances together with provisions for more flexible repayment arrangements. I would also call attention to improvements in the timing of Wheat Board final payments and adjustment cheques, to the implementation of the deferred cash ticket option on grain deliveries, and to the arrangement for putting reliable production and marketing information into the hands of producers regularly each year well in advance of seeding.
Determined efforts have been made to remove old inequities in our system of domestic feed grains marketing. The House will recall measures to bring about an upgraded crop insurance program, the premiums for which the Government of Canada shares 50-50 with farmers. In addition,
June 25, 1976

the terms upon which Farm Credit Corporation loans are made have been substantially improved.
Further measures for the strengthening of the western grains industry include: a poll among producers on rape-seed marketing; the experimental producer election of an advisory committee to the Wheat Board a year ago; a new quota system; the block shipping system; the purchase of 6,000 grain hopper cars; a boxcar repair program; the Mants Report on boxcar allocation procedures; the appointment of port co-ordinators for Thunder Bay and Vancouver; the Snavely Commission on the cost of transporting grain by rail, and the Hall Commission on grain handling and transportation. Finally I must mention, of course, the western grain stabilization plan which will bring a new and unprecedented measure of strength and stability to the western grains industry, to individual producers, and to the western economy generally.
That is just a partial list of achievements but it will give the House an idea of the important and impressive advances which have assisted the western grains industry to rise to the unprecedented state of strength and health which it has enjoyed in recent years. Also important, indeed I would say crucial to this improved state of affairs for western producers, is the unparalleled ability, capacity, and good judgment of prairie farmers themselves as producers and marketers which places them in the ranks of the world's most resourceful and productive people. The bill now before us is another progressive step forward on two fronts for the Western grains industry. I commend it to the House for speedy final passage in the interests of prairie grain farmers.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. President of the Privy Council.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Five o'clock!


Mitchell William Sharp: We have completed the government business before the House today, but before asking Your Honour to call it five o'clock might I indicate the order of business for Monday? We shall call Bill C-61 for third reading. This will be followed by Bill C-83 and discussion will continue until the House can resume consideration of Bill C-84 which will be at the report stage when the committee reports on Monday evening.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There was some discussion earlier today about the possibility of the House passing a resolution in connection with the air traffic control and airline pilot situation. Has anything been done on that matter?


Mitchell William Sharp: I had some discussion with the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) and with the House Leader of that party, as well as with the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent). The minister concerned held discussions today with the air traffic controllers and these talks have now been adjourned.
Business of the House
There have been some very preliminary discussions here and it may be that on Monday we shall want to consider a resolution. However, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) indicated during the question period, the terms of the resolution would of course be negotiated with the other parties before being presented to the House; so there will be no action today, though there may be on Monday.


Donald W. Munro: If I understood the government House leader correctly he mentioned Bill C-61 which, as far as I know, had been left out of the package which was to be completed by June 30. I take it this is just a filler-that we shall just have a discussion on the subject and continue when we resume in the fall.


Mitchell William Sharp: When I announced the business the government insisted be completed before we adjourn, I did not include Bill C-61. However, this did not mean we would not want to discuss Bill C-61, and if the House is prepared to approve third reading, that would not be contrary to any undertaking I have given. But we are not insisting on the approval of Bill C-61 before we adjourn.


Donald W. Munro: And that, I understand, is to be the first order of business on Monday. May I ask for how long we will be discussing that measure before we go on to Bill C-84? Is a certain period of time to be allocated?


Mitchell William Sharp: I would be prepared to devote the whole of Monday to Bill C-61. If the House were able to agree to approve it, we would be very pleased. But if the House decided not to do so, we would accept that situation. We would then proceed to Bill C-83. Also, if Bill C-61 is approved of some time on Monday we would turn to Bill C-83, but in any event Bill C-83 would be taken up until we go back to consideration of the report stage of Bill C-84.


Mr. Stanfield:: My understanding was that at the time the House agreed to extend hours it was also agreed that only a very limited legislative package would be considered, for example, the bill relating to government expenditures was not included-Bill C-87.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't bring that back.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: No, I don't want to do that. But my impression as to what was agreed to differs from that of the government House leader. I am subject to correction, but my impression was that when we agreed to extended hours part of that agreement was that a list of certain bills was to be considered, and that Bill C-61 was not one of those. I think there is something more involved in this than the government House leader simply saying that he never agreed to more than that the government would not insist on certain bills being considered before the House adjourned. My impression is that the government House leader agreed that only certain bills would be considered as part of the package of extended hours.
I am not accusing the government House leader of bad faith-I do not think he would be guilty of such a thing- but it seems to me that there should be some consultation

June 25, 1976
Business of the House
in regard to the government House leader bringing forward some bill that is not in the package. Otherwise there might be quite a widespread feeling in some parts of the House that there has been a breach of good faith by the hon. gentleman.


Mitchell William Sharp: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, the extended hours were introduced in order to enable us basically to get ahead with Bill C-84. However, I would indicate-and I think this will support the position I have taken-that while we would not insist upon the passage of C-83, for example, it would be discussed as long as the House was in session and progress could be made. I think we are in very much the same position on Bill C-61, that the government would like to see it approved but would not keep the House in session for the purpose of discussing Bill C-61. Moreover, we would not be discussing Bill C-61 during any of the extended hours.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Are we going to have extended hours on Tuesday and Thursday of next week? We agreed that once Bill C-84 was passed that was it, or did it relate to all government business?


Mitchell William Sharp: The order speaks for itself, Mr. Speaker. At one time at an earlier stage we negotiated for extended hours only for the purpose of considering the second reading of Bill C-84. Then at a later stage the negotiations were changed and there was a clear understanding, which is expressed in the order, that the extended hours and the end of private members' hours extend until the adjournment.


Thomas Gordon Towers: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, would the government House leader give us his word that he will not bring Bill C-83 on until the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), who is leading the discussion at the present time in committee on Bill C-84, has at least had an opportunity to debate it? Also in view of the fact that the justice committee is going to be sitting all day Monday, and that it sat this morning and this afternoon, surely to goodness the government House leader will not bring Bill C-83 on and debate it in the House at the same time as the justice committee is sitting. Could we have a promise from the House leader that he will not bring Bill C-83 on without at least our having an opportunity to debate the issue, or until Bill C-84 is reported to the House?


Mitchell William Sharp: I understand the concern of the hon. member and this is the reason, for example, that I did not call Bill C-83 today or call it as the first order of business on Monday. However, I do want to make it clear that on Tuesday we would resume consideration of Bill C-83, because by that time, by its own order, the committee would have reported. I am prepared to say that if the House does approve Bill C-61 during Monday I would adjourn the House and not call Bill C-83 if at that time the committee is still sitting. When the committee has reported, I think it would be proper to bring Bill C-83 into the House. I quite understand the hon. member's concern, and it is the reason I did not call Bill C-83 today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I assure my good friend from Edmonton Centre that there will be no extended hours on Thursday. Thursday is a holiday.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I should like to ask the government House leader what it is we shall be doing on Friday. If he has a program all set up for Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, what about Friday?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the situation is this, as I understand it. The Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs has an order which requires that the bill be reported before some time on the evening of Monday. It would require the unanimous consent of the House for the report to be received at that time. If that consent is denied, which I hope will not be the case-I hope everyone is interested in disposing of the matter and in allowing the debate to proceed without unnecessary delay-if someone does object, and it only takes one voice to object, then the report would be made on Tuesday at two o'clock. That would require 48 hours' notice before we could take up report stage, which would take us to Friday, so we will be sitting on Friday to take up consideration of the report stage of Bill C-84.


Some hon. Members:: Five o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that we call it five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock this House stands adjourned until Monday next at two o'clock p.m.
At 4.38 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, June 28, 1976