1976-03-03

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I ask consent to propose a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. There can be no matter more urgent and nothing more necessary than that the public be assured beyond all doubt or suspicion that justice in Canada is duly and impartially administered, and that the judges charged with this duty are free to perform it without interference or the merest suspicion of interference.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A challenge against the freedom and independence of the Canadian judiciary is equally a challenge against this parliament and the constitution. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That subject as hereafter stipulated, the Governor in Council forthwith appoint a royal commission with full powers to inquire into and report upon allegations of interference, by the executive authority or other persons, with the due and impartial administration of justice, with particular reference to the report of the Honourable Mr. Justice Kenneth C. Mackay to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada of February 20, 1976, but that such terms of reference be first submitted upon government motion within the next five sitting days to this House for debate and subject to amendment, such proceedings not to exceed one sitting day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUGGESTED PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, while we certainly would have supported that motion, and we so indicated, the motion I intend to move is different because it is under a different law, and I hope the government side will not react in the same way.
I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Considering the seriousness of the charges made by Judge K. C. Mackay of the Superior Court of Quebec that there has been prevalent political interference with the course of justice by members of the cabinet, and considering that three specific incidents were cited by him, in order to clarify this situation and to assure the public that there is no political interference in our judicial system I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House urges the Prime Minister to establish forthwith a public inquiry under the Inquiries Act to investigate these serious charges.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PROPOSED CONSULTATION ON TERMS OF REFERENCE AND NATURE OF INQUIRY INTO ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Since I am speaking in this rarified atmosphere, as my hon. friends said, possibly I am a pink Tory.
I should like to move a motion under Standing Order 43. The foundation has been well laid for me by the hon. gentlemen who have spoken ahead of me. I therefore move the following motion, and I am sure it will be acceptable in the terms given, bearing in mind the remarks of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) and the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent):
In the light of the circumstances and the relationship of the ministers concerned to the government and the imperative need to have an unbiased, open and completely objective inquiry into the facts, and as Parliament is the highest court and original fountain of justice, this House urges the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice to consult with opposition parties in the House as to the nature, terms of reference and character of the inquiry.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion can only be presented with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

March 3, 1976
Parliamentary Library


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion concerning an urgent and important matter.
In view of the decision of the American government to build in Bangor, Washington, a Trident nuclear submarine base whose power may suggest that the United States intend to establish there a first-rate striking force, which threatens to give a new impulse to the dangerous escalation of the arms race, and since the Canadian Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) has just stated that he was in favour of such a decision which, in his opinion, would prevent a nuclear war, when studies indicate that world-wide military expenses to ensure peace are expected to reach $300 billion in 1976, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That the House examine right now the position Canada should defend on disarmament in accordance with the attitude already taken by our government on many occasions and particularly at the disarmament conference so that our country continue to play honestly an important role in the matter of disarmament, as the Canadian Association for the United Nations has just urged.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to deal with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that today is the 100th anniversary of the parliamentary library and this occasion will be celebrated tonight with a sitdown dinner and ball, and in view of the fact that, at a time of restraint, this "Freebie" is by invitation only to all M.P.s, Senators, and top echelon bureaucrats-easily recognized as the lowest paid workers in Canada, and in view of the fact that those who serve in making the library of parliament the successful tool it is, namely the library workers, are excluded from this bash, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):

That this House authorize one paid holiday, apart from those already statutorily granted for 1976, for those library workers not involved in tonight's bash to honour them for their role in making the library of parliament the success it has been in the last 100 years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to put the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to put forward a motion on an important matter of pressing necessity.
Since the new dairy policy this government intends to announce has been established without any consultation with any political party of the opposition in this House, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne):
That the Department of Agriculture and the minister concerned take stock of the new dairy policy to be announced in April by systematic and serious consultation with each party of the opposition about the dairy policy, considering that the same minister said yesterday that all Canadians should give their opinion on this question and that not only the members of the Liberal party but also those of the opposition parties represent the Canadian people.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an urgent and important matter.
Since advertising represents one of the most important factors of the cost of living increase in Canada, and since advertising through television, radio, newspapers and magazines encourage consumers to buy ever more and thus incite them to live beyond their means, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
March 3, 1976

That this House take forthwith every necessary action to provide for some restrictions to apply to advertising urging to spend.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, while the manner in which the enthusiasm displayed by government members in turning down those three successive motions which were made this afternoon lead one to believe the government is so self-satisfied-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John George Diefenbaker: -that it does not intend to answer any questions concerning this matter-


Mr. Sharp:: Ask the question and you will get an answer.


John George Diefenbaker: -I hope the Prime Minister may think otherwise. I ask him whether or not he believes in the complete independence of the judiciary from influence of cabinet ministers or members of parliament either directly or by subtle indirectness constitutes a cornerstone of the heritage of the administration of justice? I ask him, therefore, four ministers having been named in a press article in the Toronto Globe and Mail of today, will he be prepared to set up a judicial body, I would think of three judges-


Mr. Trudeau:: Why not of five?


John George Diefenbaker: What does the Prime Minister say?


An hon. Member:: Why not of five?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Or, why not of four?


Some hon. Members:: Question, question.


John George Diefenbaker: I thought I would keep the number smaller, so that the Prime Minister would understand.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Or, what about one?
Oral Questions


John George Diefenbaker: -and not compose of judges in the province of Quebec, because it would embarrass them to be on such a commission.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Shame!


John George Diefenbaker: What are these interruptions of the Prime Minister? He is the protector of the rights of parliament, and he is interrupting on this matter.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What is wrong with judges from Quebec?


John George Diefenbaker: Is he afraid of an investigation?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John George Diefenbaker: Assuming that he is not, for the sake of argument, I ask him, will he set up such a commission at once, to clear away this matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not basing my answer on what the right hon. gentleman says. I think what he said about the judges of Quebec is not relevant to this subject. I am not basing it, either-


John George Diefenbaker: I do not want to embarrass them, by asking them to try a matter affecting one of them.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the right hon. member wants to ask a supplementary question before I have finished answering, let him ask it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am just pointing out that the interruptions are not one-sided.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister started the interruptions a while ago.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about what has been rumoured and stated, and because of that, I discussed with the Minister of Justice the substance of a letter which he received from Justice Mackay, and I am satisfied with the attitude he has taken.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. I have to repeat the question. Naturally, the Minister of Justice desires to agree with anything, in order to protect his colleagues.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Paproski:: Basford's getting up. Sit down, Basford. Three o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Three o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is obvious that the Minister of Justice is seeking the floor, to intervene on a question of privilege. The implications contained in questions and answers, at this stage, relating to what is a serious matter will only invite these kinds of interventions, which

March 3, 1976
Oral Questions
I cannot consider until three o'clock. I would be grateful if both those hon. members putting questions and those answering would stick as closely as possible to factual remarks.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I could not be more in agreement with you.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY- REQUEST FOR TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE OF MINISTERS BEARING ON ALLEGATIONS
John George Diefenbaker: I ask the
Prime Minister, now, will he request all the ministers in question to produce all correspondence, office diaries or other records of events that bear on these allegations, and will he table such material?


An hon. Member:: Innuendo.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I regret the innuendoes against the Minister of Justice contained in the question, just as I regret the innuendoes against judges of Quebec in the previous question.


John George Diefenbaker: Against the judges of Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: There are no innuendoes. I am concerned about a different matter. I made no innuendo.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What did the right hon. gentleman say?


An hon. Member:: We heard what the Prime Minister said.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have, on the basis of what I heard, discussed the matter with the Minister of Justice. A letter has been sent from Justice Mackay to the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice has looked into this matter. He has discussed it with me. I am satisfied, at this stage, that there is no need for an inquiry.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No allegations, substantiated allegations, were made, although some were made which were not correct in fact, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: And which are they?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No substantiated allegations cause me to call for such an inquiry. If it can aid the House, I would ask the Minister of Justice to state what attitude he has taken.


Mr. Basford:: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is a procedure in the rules with regard to ministerial statements. We would be delighted to hear a ministerial statement after the question period in the usual way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is not an extraordinary practice for one minister, particularly the Prime Minister, to refer all or part of an answer to another minister. However, it is not a practice I want to impose on the House.


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY- CONSULTATION WITH MINISTERS MENTIONED IN ALLEGATIONS
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the Prime Minister turned down a request for an inquiry. Has the Prime Minister discussed the allegations made by Justice Mackay with the Minister of Public Works and the former Minister of Finance? If so, will he confirm that they were approached by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs regarding the contempt proceedings, what was said and what the purpose of the approach was for?


Stanley Ronald Basford: If I may
answer that, Mr. Speaker, I have, as the Prime Minister indicated, received a letter from Mr. Justice Mackay which contains some allegations. I would point out to the House before commenting on the correspondence that it is important to me and I have considered my position very carefully. If I may, I would refer the right hon. member for Prince Albert to Edwards on the Office of Law Officer under the Crown. He will find that the position of Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada is a particular and unusual position within our parliament and parliamentary system, one which is not subject to the kinds of influence that the right hon. member has implied.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: I have considered this position very carefully. It seems imperative for the independence of the judiciary and the proper maintenance of relationships between judges and chief justices and the office of Minister of Justice that letters from them to me should not embroil them in public debate. Therefore, I am going to be very limited in my comments on this or any other correspondence in this or any other case. I think that is essential for the administration of justice and the independence of the judiciary of Canada.
With regard to the three instances on which the hon. member for Calgary North has commented, I would point out that one relates to an incident in 1969 about which no complaint was received then or thereafter. The second involving Mr. Justice Aronovitch, apart from Mr. Justice Mackay's letter, I have received no information or complaint from the judge involved. Of course, the President of the Treasury Board has taken action relative to that. With regard to the third suggestion concerning the associate chief justice of Quebec, again no further information is in
March 3, 1976

my hands than that contained in the letter and no complaint has been received by me.
Because of the letter in my hands, I have asked for explanations from my colleagues who, I may say, are outstanding members of the bar of the province of Quebec and know the laws of this country as well as any other member of the bar of the province of Quebec. I have, however, asked for explanations. On the basis of information supplied to me, I am not persuaded that any action should be taken by me at this time, except to communicate with the chief justice of the province of British Columbia.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Ronald Basford: That was a Freudian slip, because I see him in the gallery, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: But I am communicating with the chief justice of the province of Quebec who, as you realize, Mr. Speaker, is the person principally responsible for the management of this court and for the maintenance of its independence. On the basis of the information I now have, I think it appropriate that I communicate with the chief justice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, Mr. Speaker, that is the strangest answer to that question!


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY- REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION OF MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will turn, now, to another member of the cabinet, and address a question to the Minister of Public Works. In a letter to the Minister of Justice on February 20, Mr. Justice Mackay stated:
After Mr. Ouellet asked Mr. John Turner to intervene on his behalf with the judge presiding over the contempt of court proceedings and was promptly rebuffed, he approached Mr. Drury with more success, but, as it turned out, without the desired effect.
Would the Minister of Public Works tell the House whether he was approached and what kind of assistance he rendered?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: My comments on this particular case will, of necessity, be rather limited-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: -in that the case in question is currently under appeal. I think it would be only an irresponsible member who would try to persist in having an effect or influence on a judgment on appeal. As to the discussion I had with my colleague, both of us are lawyers, both of us are members of the Privy Council, and I think the House will understand that conversations of this kind are privileged; they always have been and I shall continue to regard them as such.
Oral Questions
I had a conversation, also, with the association chief justice of Quebec, along, as I discovered, with a great many other public spirited citizens who had taken part in trying to effect a solution to a rather difficult and, to some degree, unprecedented problem. The hon. Mr. Justice MacKay has suggested that my intervention, whatever it may have been-and he does not make any suggestion as to what it was-did not have the desired effect.


An hon. Member:: What was it?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I may say for the benefit of those who are prepared to listen that in my opinion the integrity, the independence, of the judiciary is critical to the successful running of a country such as ours and I both respect and admire this principle. If it were not for the fact that I consider the association chief justice of Quebec, whom I have known for a number of years, to be uninfluencible, in a pejorative sense, I would have refrained from intervening or from having any conversation with him. Indeed, the only intervention that would be contemplated by me would be one to see that he was in full knowledge of the facts and did his duty. I did not attempt to influence the decision.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY- REASON FOR REFUSING PUBLIC INQUIRY
John Edward Broadbent: Earlier, in his answers, the Prime Minister said that what we have been dealing with so far were unsubstantiated statements.
I ask the Prime Minister, in all seriousness, whether or not he has considered the fact that the charges which have been made were made by a judge and that they are quite specific. In his original letter the judge in question wrote that there was "interfering with the course of justice", and then went on to say that it was "all too prevalent." He said that with specific reference to members of the cabinet. Considering that he made this general reference in his first letter and then, when asked to be more specific by the Minister of Justice in response, the same judge attempted to document this general claim by referring to three specific instances, I ask the Prime Minister, in the interests of seeing that justice be seen to be done in Canada, does he not think it appropriate to have a public inquiry into these three very specific charges made by the judge?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as in other cases where the opposition have demanded inquiries, I have not excluded them as a matter of principle. I have always answered that if the facts cannot be ascertained otherwise, and if it is in the best interests of the country and of justice, then we will have an inquiry. In this particular instance the hon. member is right; there have been some allegations. I have discussed them with the Minister of Justice. The House knows that, at least in the case of one allegation, it has given rise to a suit, or to a demand for retraction. I do not see it to be in the interest of this House or of justice at this time to set up an inquiry.


John George Diefenbaker: Or ever.

March 3, 1976
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker. I think the course we are following is the correct one.


John George Diefenbaker: It is all wrong, and you know it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Minister of Justice has investigated these charges and he has answered them in part in a letter that was published, without the minister being responsible for that. He has now taken the course of consulting with the chief justice of Quebec, through whom these matters should properly go. If the chief justice of Quebec finds he wants to pursue the matter, then we will pursue the matter in whatever way he suggests. At this stage I think the initiative taken by Justice Mackay has been dealt with by the minister in his answer in a way that satisfies me. However, I repeat that if the courts of Quebec, through their chief justice, have other views, we will be glad to hear them. I, personally, do not believe that an inquiry such as suggested by three members on the other side would be in the interests of justice in the province of Quebec.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I will try to make my question brief. I want to make it clear that, speaking for my colleagues, we have not prejudged this case in any way. The issue is one of extreme seriousness. Following from what the Prime Minister has said, since one of the implications of Justice Mackay's letter is that there is continuing interference with the judiciary-I repeat that I am not necessarily agreeing, but that is the allegation-does the Prime Minister not think that by leaving the matter internal, even after careful consideration by the Minister of Justice and himself regarding an inquiry that presumably the Prime Minister is implying will be made by the chief justice of Quebec, keeping the matter internal like that and possibly reaching a negative conclusion, rather than establishing that innocence is beyond question, will result in everything remaining under a cloud of suspicion?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the suspicion certainly would not be what we would have wished. I agree that the charges are serious. I think I have indicated that I regret the way in which they have been made, and the way in which they have been made public. I believe these charges are a matter for the chief justice of the province of Quebec. It appears from the published correspondence that this is also his opinion. I repeat that the Minister of Justice, presumably through his officials, will communicate with the chief justice. Certainly, I want to make sure that we hear all sides of this matter before considering it closed.


John Edward Broadbent: You are judging your own case, aren't you?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not the chief justice, Mr. Speaker. We are asking the chief justice to look into the matter, which is the proper course for any judge who has a complaint of the nature and seriousness of the one that has been made.


John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Prime Minister why he would not consider appointing the chief justice of the province of Quebec himself to head this inquiry and to conduct it in public, so that if innocence of all the people who have been

charged turns out to be the case, which I genuinely hope will be the case, then it will clearly be seen to be so. Why will not the Prime Minister ask the chief justice of Quebec to conduct publicly such an investigation, instead of keeping it, I will not say secretive, but certainly private?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, if I may answer that, it is because there is nothing in front of me that indicates there are any private communications to a judge for the purpose of influencing his decision, or that there have been actions to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice. There are certain procedures. If there is that sort of information, and if such attempts have been made, the person who would be in possession of those facts would be the chief justice of Quebec. That is the purpose of communicating with him.


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY- POSSIBILITY OF OTHER INCIDENTS
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, let me direct my question to the Prime Minister since we have become bogged down with only three instances. When one reflects on the letter of Mr. Justice Mackay dated February 20, one sees that he wrote "I can think of at least three incidents which in my view are unwarranted attempts to interfere with the judicial process". The obvious implication from that is that more than three such incidents may exist. Accordingly, I would ask the Prime Minister whether he can inform the House if he intends to direct or has directed the Minister of Justice to investigate the possibility of further ministerial interference with the judiciary?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the person in the best position, of course, to advise on that, in line with our tradition of the independence of the judiciary in this country, is the chief justice of the province, who is responsible for the management of his courts and for their independence and protection. If, of course, the chief justice has indications of that kind of influence from his judges, I have every confidence in the chief justice of Quebec to report those to me or to the proper authorities.


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY-PRIME MINISTER'S DISCUSSIONS WITH MINISTER OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I hope the Minister of Justice will be specific in directing his question to the judge in order to determine just what other instances he has in mind, if any. One last supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In light of the fact that the Prime Minister's then principal secretary has been mentioned in this article, has the Prime Minister had a discussion with his then principal secretary as to whether there were any other interventions made by him, and has this discussion been since these revelations have come to his notice?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have had a discussion with my former principal
March 3, 1976

secretary. I did not ask him whether there were any other cases such as that alleged in the newspaper this morning.


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY- AWARENESS OF PRIME MINISTER OF VISIT TO JUDGE BY HIS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Justice Mackay has alleged in his letter to the Minister of Justice that in March, 1969, during the trial of the Trinidad students, he received a visit from the then chief executive assistant to the Prime Minister. Let me quote Mr. Justice Mackay: ". . . to put the trial off for a few weeks ... He then told me to postpone my charge". Is the Prime Minister aware that representations, or if that is too strong a word, if a visit was to be made by his chief political aide?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The
answer is no, Mr. Speaker. I was not aware such a visit was to be made. I was informed after the fact that such a visit had been made but not with the purpose described in that letter which I am informed is not in conformity with the facts.


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Speaker, I think we are all hoping to accept the words, but I think we would be derelict in our duty if we did not try to clear up this matter. So I will ask why it was thought to be a wise course of action for the chief political aide-I like the expression "political aide"; it is an honourable combination of words-to see fit to visit a judge rather than have representations made on behalf of Trinidad or any other country through the normal channel of external affairs or the Department of Justice. Surely, this was an unusual course.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, I repeat that the visit was made without my knowledge. I was informed of it afterwards. In consequence, I discussed the subject with my then political aide. I am informed by him that the nature of the visit was not as described in that letter. I agree with the hon. member for Fundy-Royal that these are serious allegations. I do not intend to just have a unilateral explanation of it either from one side or another. I think it is a fact that some allegations in Justice Mack-ay's letter have given rise to a denial. One at least is known-a denial by the President of the Treasury Board. I think the matter is serious enough for us to have it looked into by the chief justice who is in charge of the administration of justice. So far as we are concerned the matter is not ended until we hear he is satisfied.
I think it is important to underline, as the Minister of Justice said a few minutes ago, that he has received no complaints from two of the three judges who are mentioned in Justice Mackay's letter. Neither the minister nor his officials have received any complaints. If Justice Mackay has a complaint and it has been made public I think it should be investigated, but I am anxious to have it investigated in the proper way. The hon. member opposite says "my way". I would suggest that is perhaps an unwarranted slur on the chief justice. Whatever he does will not be my way.
Oral Questions


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY- POSSIBILITY OF COURT ACTION
André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the disturbing allegations by a judge regarding certain ministers of the Crown and the statement by the Prime Minister and his government colleagues that no investigation will be held to clarify this matter, and that some ministers appear to be implicated by the release of those facts, will the Prime Minister advise the House whether he, himself, or a member of his cabinet will soon take legal action to clear those allegations which have been published in a rather regrettable manner?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Once again Mr. Speaker, I have never stated there would not be an inquiry. I did say that, so far, serious allegations were published in the press, and the Minister of Justice of our government investigated those allegations and is satisfied at this stage that no action is called for on his part except consulting with the chief justice of Quebec who is responsible for the administration of justice in that province. I am sure he will want to decide for himself whether he should take further action and prevail upon the judges concerned to give him their sides of the story. It is important to point out, as the minister did, that two of the judges to whom Mr. Justice Mackay referred have never complained about anything, either to the minister or his officials or, as far as I know, to the chief justice.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Since there have been very serious allegations, to quote the Prime Minister, my question deals with a very specific point. Can the Prime Minister inform the House whether legal action will be or has now been taken by any of the ministers, and especially the President of the Treasury Board?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, in this specific case, I have written a letter to the Prime Minister, and I would like to table it at this point in order to inform every member of the situation.
In 1971, I discussed with Mr. Justice Aronovitch the date of a judgment. Yesterday I spoke with him and he confirmed to me that at no time did I try to influence his decision. He confirmed it to one of my assistants. Before sending my letter to the Prime Minister I read him a copy of the letter I had written, and he confirmed that it was true to fact. Therefore, this morning I asked my lawyers in Montreal to advise Mr. Justice Mackay to kindly withdraw, to apologize, because I feel he has been misled voluntarily or involuntarily, and I hope that within three days he will make the appropriate retraction.
At no time, Mr. Speaker, did I try to exert influence on a judge. I have been a member of the bar for 15 years and I practiced law during a number of years. I exercized every caution to find out whether in the circumstances I could act as I did. What was involved there was an industry shut down in Grand-Mere affecting 350 employees. I was trying to get people to replace the jobs lost in my constituency. I acted in my capacity as member of parliament for a con-

March 3, 1976
Oral Questions
stituency faced with a 16 per cent unemployment rate, and I do not believe I have to apologize to anybody for trying to fulfill my responsibilities as a member of this House for Saint-Maurice.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister seeks, I take it, to table a letter to which he has made reference. The Standing Orders permit a minister of the Crown, of course, to table any document to which he has referred in the course of debate or discussion in the House which relates to his particular administrative responsibility. This probably would be an exception. I presume, however, that the House might want to give its consent to the tabling of the document. However, it ought to be sought. Does the minister have the consent of the House to table the letter in question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to say that I also asked my legal advisers to consider the possibility of instituting proceedings against the newspaper that published allegations based on hearsay rather than on specific charges.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Will the right hon. gentleman not take into account the fact that the issues have already been clearly drawn in this matter and either the allegations made by Mr. Justice Mackay are wrong, in which event there is some doubt about his competence to continue to hold his position, or they are right, in which case there is some doubt as to the propriety of the three ministers to remain where they are. Will he take that into calculation and do something to remedy this intolerable situation, because after all the public are more important than the right hon. gentleman and myself. They are entitled to have a full, unbiased and quite open examination of the allegations.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right; there is this choice to be made. If the decision comes on one side, indeed, it will not be a good thing for the ministers. If it comes on the other side, it will not enhance the reputation of the administration of justice, and that is why I am not certain it is in the public interest at this stage to have a full inquiry.


Some hon. Members:: Why?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Because I am trying to indicate to the House that in our view the proper course would have been for Mr. Justice Mackay to speak to the chief justice who would have communicated with the deputy minister of justice, and he would have looked into these facts in the proper way. Already there is a demand for withdrawal by one of the ministers. The House knows that I was mentioned in one of those letters, and since there has been no question to me about my involvement, I suppose the judgment of the House is that Justice Mackay did not have any

great cause to put me in his letter, even though it did warrant a picture of me on the first page of the Globe.
I think it should be obvious to hon. members that there may be more which should be looked into by the chief justice before the government makes a decision on this, and I know the House and the country will not forget about this incident. It is just a matter of following the proper procedure, which we are convinced we are doing.


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY- POSSIBILITY ADVICE OF MINISTER OF JUSTICE SOUGHT BEFORE PRIME MINISTER'S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VISITED JUDGE
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, surely now that we have had one minister's piece of correspondence tabled, we should have them all tabled.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: However, bearing in mind that while the Prime Minister is right that the judiciary has a role to protect our fundamental freedoms, surely this parliament has a primary role over that, not only to protect our fundamental freedom, but also to protect the freedom of the judiciary itself, which is something it may not be able to do.
Getting back to the 1969 incident, Mr. Justice Mackay stated further in reference to the alleged intervention in the trial by the present hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Lalonde)-this is in relation to the Trinidadian students- that the then minister of justice, John Turner, and I quote: "was apprised of the Lalonde incident" and that "he too, being a staunch defender of judicial independence, was deeply shocked."


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Was that before his intercession on behalf of Sky Shops?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Can the Prime Minister inform the House if the opinion of the then justice minister was ever sought by any member of the Prime Minister's office before Mr. Lalonde contacted Mr. Justice Mackay?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Lalonde, the present Minister of National Health and Welfare, informed me that he did not discuss the matter with the then minister of justice. I understand that Mr. Turner has also denied that he had been consulted about it, and I fail to see why the hon. member would repeat in the House an allegation relating to a former minister who has denied that it ever happened.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: The answer is simple: because we don't know the facts, and we are not getting them today either.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: However, if that is the case, as the Prime Minister has just indicated-and I am not denying it-can the Prime Minister then explain to the House why the contacting of a superior court judge on a matter such as this by an aide within his own office was authorized without first seeking the authorization of the then minister of justice?
March 3, 1976


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is difficult to see how it was authorized if no authorization was sought.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


Allan Frederick Lawrence: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I merely wanted to ask him why it was not sought.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY- INQUIRY WHETHER PRIME MINISTER'S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VISITED JUDGE ON OWN INITIATIVE
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I want to address a question directly to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I think in a statement he has made it absolutely clear that at the time of the trial of the Trinidadian students he did, in fact, visit Mr. Justice Mackay for some purpose or other. His account varies a good deal from Mr. Justice Mackay's account of what happened, and I also understand the Prime Minister to have said that he did not go on his instructions, although he was working in his office.
I ask the minister to tell us now if he went entirely on his own initiative, or who instructed him to go to see the justice at that particular time?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think previous practice has shown us that for the Minister of National Health and Welfare to attempt to answer that question at this time would be infringing a clearcut rule of this House that he was not at that time acting in his current capacity as a minister of the Crown at all.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question can be quite properly directed to the Prime Minister, under whose responsibility that office was then and is now.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the question I put was a question of fact directly within the knowledge of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and I suggest that this House has the right to hear from him on whose instructions he made the visit which he made. With all due respect, I fail to see why that question is in any way improper.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. Prime Minister may seek to make an answer to that question, or as has been the practice in the past, to suggest that he might refer it to the current or former minister. That is the privilege of the Prime Minister, but the question clearly cannot be put directly to the minister in his former capacity.
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot add much to what I said earlier, but it is true, as the present minister says, that he did seek Mr. Justice Mackay to talk to him at that time about a trial of students of Sir George Williams University in Montreal-


An hon. Member:: Who authorized it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and that he did it at the request of a foreign government which wanted to know something about the trial and how it was proceeding. Mr. Lalonde informed me that the only matter which arose between him and the judge was as to the date at which the judgment would be rendered and that no other matters, such as those alleged in Mr. Justice Mackay's letter, were raised between them. It was merely a question of knowing at what approximate date the trial would end.


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY- REQUEST MINISTER OF CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS RETURN FROM HOLIDAY
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that some of these extraordinary allegations involve the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), may I ask the Prime Minister if he, his Minister of Justice or any member of his cabinet or staff have been in touch with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who I understand is on vacation in Mexico? Have the views of the minister been determined, and in view of these extraordinary allegations is it the intention of the Prime Minister to order the immediate return of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Public Works indicated a moment ago, the contempt of court case in which the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is involved is now being appealed. There are no allegations of which I know made by Mr. Justice Mackay beyond the fact that there have been contempt of court proceedings. I do not know if the minister has been apprised of the contents of this morning's newspaper. I know of no need to apprise him of that. There are no new facts alleged there. I am sure somebody at some point will tell him what is going on and what has been written in the newspaper, and he probably will be informed. Perhaps the new Leader of the Opposition who is also taking a vacation in Mexico, I understand, might tell the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DECISION ON PAYMENT OF LEGAL FEES OF MR. HOLDEN
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs will get back sooner or later. May I ask the Minister of Justice if he has been in touch with his colleague on this matter?
May I also ask him at the same time if a decision has been reached with respect to the legal fees of the special prosecutor, Mr. Holden, or does the minister hold to the
11462

March 3, 1976
Oral Questions
view of his deputy minister that he should look to the sugar companies for his fee?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, yes, the decision has been made. It was made some time ago. It is contrary to the Financial Administration Act or the Department of Justice Act to pay those legal fees in the way that is being suggested.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please-


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am sorry. There was another part of the question which I forgot. No, I have not been in touch with my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs this week on the matter. There is no reason for me to contact him with regard to the contempt proceedings which are before the court at the present time, and he is not involved in these three other allegations.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the question period, when the Prime Minister suggested a statement might be made by the Minister of Justice, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton objected to such a statement being made during the question period. A moment later the hon. member for Calgary North asked the Minister of Justice a very specific question about a conversation between the Minister of Public Works and the Hon. John Turner. The reply of the Minister of Justice was not a reply to that question at all; it was a reading of a prepared statement that dealt with the three cases referred to in the letter of Mr. Justice Mackay.
I suggest, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that during the question period we had a statement by the Minister of Justice. I also suggest that when the President of the Treasury Board answered a question, he dealt with a matter that had nothing to do with his responsibilities as President of the Treasury Board and, added to that, it was a statement. The Minister of Public Works also made a statement about the whole matter. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the rights of the opposition have been interfered with by this practice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: In fact, we had three or four lengthy statements by ministers during the question period, and when we reach the point in our proceedings for statements by ministers, replies by the opposition should be allowed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!	-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Minister of Justice on the same point of order.


Stanley Ronald Basford: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that I appear to have transgressed the practice of the House and the rules that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has referred to. I regret that I have been labouring under the impression that the purpose of the question period was to elicit information. I regret that my answers apparently have contained too much information for the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton on the same point of order.


Walter David Baker: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was the one who raised the question of ministerial statements. I would ask the Minister of Justice whether in the course of consideration of this matter over the next 24 hours he would consider very carefully the answers that have been given by the ministers involved or on behalf of ministers involved. I refer particularly to the Minister of Public Works who indicated that he had made the Justice aware of the full facts of the case. I think that is as close a quote as I can get. By any stretch of the imagination, lawyer or layman, that is an interference with the course of justice. Will the Minister of Justice examine all these questions overnight and be prepared to come to this House tomorrow and make a full and frank statement on motions, when there will be the complete right of this House to properly examine the matter in a way far beyond the question period?
Just before we finish this part of our proceedings, I would think it is incumbent upon the minister as well to inform the House what his intentions are with respect to any investigation that may be made by the Chief Justice of Quebec. I hope it is not the decision of the minister that the Minister of Justice or this government are necessarily bound by the results of any investigation by any person outside this House, whether or not that person is the chief justice of any province of Canada.
The Minister of Justice, as he said himself, has a very big and very important responsibility with respect to this matter, and a duty to report to this House that the Chief Justice of Quebec or of any province does not have.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby on the same point of order.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I am going to conclude by most seriously urging a couple of ministers to use the rules as they exist at this time in our proceedings to make statements on motions as they are entitled to do. The course of action that the Prime Minister has indicated the government is going to take in this matter makes it clear that at this point he has decided it is not going to be publicly discussed or publicly investigated. I think that is rather a mistake, but that is his decision.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is not my decision.


John Edward Broadbent: By not having statements made in the House, particularly by the Minister of National Health and Welfare and also the Minister of Justice, to explain on the one hand their past actions and on the other their present course of action is a mistake, I think, and is a disservice to the House and to the public. In speaking on this point of order, I urge these ministers to make a statement on motions for the following reasons. The Minister of Justice has indicated that he is looking into the allegations made by the judge, and on the basis of some kind of consultation he has concluded that the only course of action that is proper is to refer the matter to the Chief Justice of the province of Quebec. I suggest that the only ground I can see for his reaching that conclusion is that he has accepted the word of the Minister of National Health and Welfare
March 3, 1976

over the word of the Justice who made the original allegation.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


John Edward Broadbent: That is an extremely important point. Surely, as a minister of the Crown in a political party whose integrity in this case has been questioned by a particular judge, he has a responsibility to explain to this House how he reached the conclusion that all he had to do now was refer the matter to the Chief Justice of Quebec. I think this is extremely important.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Second, I think it is important that the Minister of National Health and Welfare-and I understand Your Honour's previous ruling on this matter; he was not a minister at the time he took the course of action that the judge said he took-as a minister of the Crown now would have a right under the rules of this House to get up and make a statement clearing up for the record the role he played and under whose instructions he acted; if he did not issue instructions to the judge in question, what he did; what was the nature of his position; if he acted under the request of a foreign government and acted on that request to interfere with the judicial process in this country. It seems to me he should have an explanation to present to the House to justify that course of action as well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Finally, then, I think ministers should get to their feet and make a statement to the House that would provide a clear explanation of the conduct of those charged.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before you move on, I simply rise to say I was quite serious in my point of order that statements of ministers have been made and at this point, whether they are prepared to make further comments or not, the rules should apply and opposition members should have a chance to reply to those statements.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre raised the original point of order concerned with the answers given by ministers during the question period today. I am sure he knows full well, as do other hon. members, that there may be comments on the length or nature of replies given by ministers during the question period. That, surely, cannot be translated into surrounding them with a nature that makes them into a statement by a minister during that period of time. If such an attempt were made by a minister during the question period, I am sure the objection would be loud and long and what constituted a statement would have to be deferred to an appropriate time during orders of the day and would not be permitted during the question period.
Certainly no such objection was forthcoming during the question period. I cannot now place upon those answers
Oral Questions
that kind of character, any more than I could on other occasions make those kinds of rulings during the question period to change the character of an answer or in fact of many of the questions that are put.
The other point of order is one urging that ministers come forward and make statements on this subject. That point has been well made, but there is no ruling that can be made by the Chair in respect of this kind of representation.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I fully support the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I am one of the members involved. I put my first question as well as my supplementary directly to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and, as the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) already mentioned, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) thought it proper to answer with material he had on hand, just as if he was making a declaration under the Standing Orders of the House. I was allowed to speak on two occasions only, and after the President of the Treasury Board made his declaration, which I do not contest, I was no longer entitled to put a supplementary concerning an answer given by the minister, when I did not even ask for it. Mr. Speaker, I feel that our rights are violated on this matter, that both the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) were absolutely right. The ministers try to evade the issue by making statements when and where they wish, thus preventing the opposition from shedding light on such questionable issues as those we are discussing today. Either we are allowed to ask questions, or we are not.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it is not an answer period; it is a question period.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I think I have the right to point out that early in the question period several members tried to raise points of order. I got up myself. Your Honour said you could not entertain points of order until three o'clock. Then, when I raised my point of order at three o'clock, you said it should have been raised previously, which is what I had tried to do.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We should be fundamentally clear on what has taken place. Extensive, lengthy questions were put to ministers from the beginning to end of the question period. In every case, questioners were permitted latitude to ask lengthy, detailed questions. Similarly, latitude was allowed to ministers in making their responses to lengthy questions. If I were now to make the interpretation that such lengthy replies ought to have been made by way of statements on motions, that might constitute a criticism of the ministers. To go one step further and say that they in fact constitute a statement on motions
11464

March 3, 1976
Order Paper Questions
would, it seems to me, fly in the face of our Standing Orders.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table, in both official languages, the following documents: The agreement between the Canadian Film Development Corporation and Famous Players Limited; the agreement between the Canadian Film Development Corporation and Odeon Theatres (Canada) Limited; the statement of investment by Famous Players Limited for the period of August 1, 1975, to October 31, 1975; the report of the exhibition of Canadian feature films for the period August 1 to October 31, 1975, from Famous Players Limited.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 4,115 and 4,125.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions stand.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): With reference to the answer to Question No. 3,891, what are the (a) names (b) addresses of the head offices of companies which are in tax arrears?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: The
provisions of Section 241 of the Income Tax Act with respect to the communication of information do not permit the Department of National Revenue to provide an answer to this question.


Mr. Whittaker: 1.	Was money returned to the Local Initiatives Programme from constituencies and, if so, from which ones arid, in each case, in what amounts?
2.	Did any constituencies receive additional funds from the Local Initiatives Programme and, if so, which ones and, in each case, in what amounts?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1 and 2. Please refer to the L.I.P. 75/76

Allocation Process tabled in the House of Commons by the Hon. Robert Andras on February 9, 1976.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 80, 81, 82 and 83?


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 80-Mr. Marshall:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of minutes of meetings, letters, telegrams between the government and the Province of Newfoundland as it relates to federal-provincial cooperation to subsidize the conversion of boats for other fisheries.
Mr. George Baker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, almost every activity the government is involved in includes some sort of discussion with the provinces during the formulation, development or implementation of policies and programs. The release of documents exchanged during the preliminary discussion phase related to policies and programs would very probably be detrimental to the future conduct of federal-provincial relations. I would therefore request that the hon. member withdraw his motion.


Mr. Marshall:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 81-Mr. Marshall:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all minutes of meetings, letters, telegrams between the government and the Province of Newfoundland as it relates to amending the regulations of the Fisheries Loan Board to reduce the down payment required to purchase new engines, electronic equipment and used fishing vessels, arising out of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Inshore Fishing.
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the government has no papers as they relate to this motion. The committee referred to was a committee of Newfoundland House of Assembly and the recommendation dealing with amending the regulations of the Fisheries Loan Board is identified in the report as a policy recommendation within the provincial domain. I would therefore request that the hon. member withdraw his motion.


Jack Marshall: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
March 3, 1976


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 82-Mr. Marshall:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all minutes of meetings, letters, telegrams between the government and the Province of Newfoundland as it relates to negotiations towards a federal-provincial gear loss insurance programme between Canada and the Maritime Provinces.
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, for the reasons stated with regard to motion for the production of papers No. 80, and as the matter involves the maritime provinces and Newfoundland and the question should have been changed to involve the Atlantic provinces, I ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Jack Marshall: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 83-Mr. Marshall:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all minutes of meetings, letters, telegrams between the government and the Province of Newfoundland as it relates to provincial management of all federally owned fish holding and handling facilities and thus upgrading to inspection standards.
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, for the same reasons stated in motion for production of papers No. 80, I would ask that the hon. member withdraw his motion.


Jack Marshall: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Medical Care Act
RSC 1970, to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Alberta.
If the House agrees, I would suggest we follow past practice and print the text of the objection as an appendix to this day's Votes and Proceedings. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order which really relates to the business of the House. I am referring to the electoral boundaries matter. I understand there is some question about the interpretation of section 20 and an amendment to that law. I do not have it in front of me. There is a question as to whether debate shall commence within the time set forth in the subsection and if certain rights are to be preserved thereby, or if debate must be commenced and completed within the time set forward in the act.
I understand that opinions will be obtained as to the interpretation of the matter. I raise it now because it is of concern to the government House leader and may affect the programming of government business. I wonder if this matter could be taken as notice. Perhaps we might look into the matter, particularly into the interpretation of the relevant section, as this matter may affect greatly the business the hon. gentleman opposite may put before the House. It could also affect the petitioners who signed. There is some question about the matter.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I thank the opposition House leader for bringing the matter to the attention of the House. I am aware of the uncertainty, which is being investigated. I hope to have an answer soon.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the House that an objection signed by the hon. members for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger), Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche), Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave), Pembina (Mr. Elzinga), Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski), Battle River (Mr. Malone), Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), Red Deer (Mr. Towers), Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and Edmonton East (Mr. Skoreyko) has been filed with me pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustement Act, chapter E-2,



MEDICAL CARE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, March 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-68, to amend the Medical Care Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, when I called it ten o'clock yesterday evening I told the House that the previous minister of national health and welfare said the cost of health services had risen so rapidly

March 3, 1976
Medical Care Act
in Canada in recent years that three alternatives were imminent: first, the standard of health care available could be reduced; second, tax premiums or deterrent fees could be raised even higher; third, ways had to be found to restrain the growth of cost increases through the better operation of the health service structure in existence.
I know the government will probably say that Bill C-68 achieves the last goal, to restrain the growth of cost increases. I am equally sure the members of this House who have spoken on this bill and others who will speak are convinced that Bill C-68 leaves open the potential tor the other two options, reduced health services and increased taxes and premiums. Let us look at what is happening in Ontario, for example. The government announced last June that ceilings would be put on federal involvement in medicare. Bill C-68 has been introduced and the government of Ontario has found it necessary to begin a program of hospital cutbacks, including closure of a number of the smaller rural hospitals.
While on this point, it has been brought to my attention that the leader of the provincial Liberal party has been moving across the province speaking about the heartless actions of the present Queen's Park administration. If he were really honest and sincere in this matter, he would be making his appeals here and launching protests with his confreres regarding their cutbacks in medical costs. This has a vital bearing on the whole question of the provision of health care including hospital care in the province of Ontario.
I would like now to question the basic premise of Bill C-68. The government has admittedly introduced Bill C-68 in order to encourage economies in medical and health care. This bill, however, has no way of ensuring this. Nothing in the bill stops the provinces, for example, from improving their health care services and nothing stops doctors from demanding salary increases. Actually, all this bill does is ensure that if either of these two events should occur, the provinces will have to pick up the extra cost either in the form of increased premiums or from provincial revenues. In short then, if costs still continue to rise, and they probably will, the provinces will be faced with three alternatives: first, to set aside other necessary programs so that the provincial treasury can cope with the extra burden; second, to increase premiums to offset increased costs; third, if they cannot meet the budgetary restraint, medical services will have to be reduced. These are three very unhappy alternatives, to say the least.
Bill C-68 is following basically the 1969 task force recommendations concerning the need to face up to rising health costs. Unfortunately, the government's action has put Canadians in a situation where they are faced with the two alternatives that the minister's predecessor rejected outright as not alternatives at all, that is, reduced health care services or increased premiums and/or taxes. In other words, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) has put the provinces in a position where if medical costs increase at a rate greater than that allowed by the 1975 ceilings, the provinces will be forced to seek those very solutions that the federal government foresaw as unacceptable and undesirable in 1969.
(Mr. Patterson.]
As we are all aware, the British North America Act does not make any provision for cost-sharing practices between the federal and provincial governments grounds for being in the health field, except possibly under the peace, order and good government residual clause of the BNA Act. Both cost-sharing and federal involvement are the result of convention and the ongoing process of developing Canadian federalism. The practice of cost-sharing, not only in health but in education, welfare and other areas, has helped to maintain national standards. As well, the very principle of co-operative federalism has become one of the unique and distinguishing features of our nation's federal structure. The government's five-year notice for its withdrawal from the present hospital insurance plan, and the imposition of ceilings on contributions to medical insurance threaten both the principle and practice of co-operative federalism.
I would draw to the attention of the House that in the initial move in this direction the federal government insisted on introducing the plan. I well remember the controversy at that time. The rumors, and I do not think they were ever refuted, were that the government was just about at the point of letting the whole plan drop. It was suggested that they make a try with one province. The premier of that province came to Ottawa. Almost hilariously, the government announced that approval had been given and the program would proceed. Therefore, it was at the instigation of the federal government that this plan was initially put into operation.
As far as I can understand, the promise was given without any qualification that the federal government would pay an average of 50 per cent of the cost. I do not think it was an over-all 50 per cent for each province. It was more of an average, with the result that some provinces did not receive 50 per cent while others did. In any event, the federal government promised, without qualification, to pay an average of 50 per cent of the cost. In view of the fact that the federal government instituted the plan and placed pressure on the provincial governments to participate in it, they should be duty bound to continue the formula until a program is in place which is mutually satisfactory to the federal and provincial governments.
Lower cost service programs should be in place before we contemplate any reduction in present medical services. This can only be accomplished by adequate consultation and effective co-operation between the federal and provincial governments. This consultation and negotiation is absolutely necessary in the circumstances existing at the present time. In conclusion, the federal government is duty bound to co-operate with the provinces until a satisfactory solution is found. When the provinces agree on a formula that is fair and equitable, possibly then the federal government can move in the direction proposed in this legislation. However, it is morally wrong for them to do so before this takes place.


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in support of my colleague's amendment which calls on this House to hoist Bill C-68 for a six-month period. This is a very reasonable amendment. It would give the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) and his provincial counterparts time to get together to
March 3, 1976

discuss the whole question of how best to deliver health care services to the people of Canada.
We have heard a lot in this House about federal-provincial co-operation and about how the consultative process works. We have hear very often in this House about the consultative process at work. That is co-operative federalism, my hon. friend from Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) tells me. We in this corner of the House support that concept. That is the nature of confederation; it is getting together and agreeing among ourselves. That is the way we govern ourselves in this country. There can be no other way. When one party acts in a high-handed manner and makes decisions which place the second party to the relationship in a bind, what results is confusion and conclusions are reached off the cuff which interfere, in this case, with the proper delivery of health care.
I should like to take a few moments to deal with the situation in one province, the province of Manitoba, which believes that Bill C-68 is an insult because of the lack of consultation. Manitoba believes the bill to be fatuous and unnecessary because of the existence of the government's anti-inflation program. Surely the anti-inflation program ought to handle the problem which hon. members opposite are trying to solve by means of this draconian measure, Bill C-68.
In Ontario, as the minister well knows, we find decisions being made by the Tory government and by the minister of health of that province, Mr. Miller, who is going about the province trying to tighten up the health services in response to the threats implied in Bill C-68. We see headlines in the newspapers such as "Civic vows to fight cutback", "Exodus by top psychiatrists is seen after health care cuts", "Cutbacks worry mental health officials". Then we find Mr. Miller saying that for the time being there are to be no further hospital closings. Nevertheless, he held out the prospect that there might be more closures next year.
All this should concern us here because we have a responsibility to make sure that Canadians receive proper health care services. The actions of Mr. Miller have served only to estrange the community. They are resulting in high unemployment among workers where hospitals have been closed or beds eliminated. This is no way of dealing with any escalation in hospital medicare costs. The federal government stands condemned because by its actions it is encouraging the provinces to undertake these harum-scarum closures.
What is the government doing in the field of preventive medicine? What is it doing in the areas for which it has a responsibility for providing leadership-for example, in the area of industrial safety? I want to quote from a speech made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) to the Mining Association of Canada on Wednesday, February 25, 1976. In that speech he had this to say about industrial safety particularly in the mines:
We could, justifiably, improve mine safety. Our record is not good. According to a study by Labour Canada, there are more man-days lost through work-related injuries than through strikes. As well, on an all-industry basis, the number of fatal accidents as a percentage of the labour force has not only increased but is significantly higher-
Medical Care Act


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order. The hon. member is straying from the subject, which is an act to amend the Medical Care Act. Perhaps he could confine his remarks to the subject of the bill.


John R. Rodriguez: With all due respect, Madam Speaker, I am thinking of what the minister himself said in the speech in this House on this particular amendment.


Mr. Lalonde:: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that I have not spoken in this House on the amendment.


John R. Rodriguez: I should have said I was thinking of what the minister had to say on the motion, Madam Speaker, not on the amendment. In the course of his speech, the hon. gentleman stated:
On an all-industry basis, the number of fatal accidents as a percentage of the labour force has not only increased but is significantly higher-1.6 per 1,000 employees in 1974-than the all-industry average which is less than 0.2 per 1,000 employees. It has also been shown that about 85 per cent of these accidents result from human error.
If the government is so interested in controlling the cost of medicare, it should obviously be embarking on a program of industrial safety. As I say, the government has a direct responsibility for safety in the uranium mines of this country. We have known for a long time that the uranium mines at Elliot Lake have allowed the safety limit to be exceeded, that workers in the mines have been exposed to radiation, dust, and so on, to such an extent as to make conditions hazardous to their health. The government knew this, the provincial health minister knew it, yet they permitted those workers to continue to work in a hazardous environment, with the result that the men came down with silicosis, or in some cases lung cancer.
What I am pointing out, Madam Speaker, is that this resulted in a great burden to the taxpayer. It seems to me that members who sit on the other side have no excuse. They have done nothing about industrial safety in the mines over which the government has jurisdiction. Instead, they bring forward a bill such as we now have before us and say, in effect, "You fellows will have to cope as best you can."
The amendment which my hon. friend has put forward proposing a six months' hoist is a good idea. It will allow a cooling-off period during which the provincial and federal health ministers can meet once again in a spirit of co-operation, in a spirit of seeking a compromise which will allow for the better protection of the health of Canadians. Hiding behind this bill reducing federal participation in increased medicare costs amounts to an avoidance of the major issue. The government is failing to live up to its responsibility. The minister ought to take our advice and approach the provincial health ministers once again in an effort to arrive at a better solution to the problem. As I say, even in the area where the government has jurisdiction, namely, the uranium mines, it has failed to live up to its responsibility.
Even in the area of workers who work for the federal government, according to the latest report of the public service, 1974-75, there were 22,218 accidents, with a direct cost of over $7 million, not including the cost to medicare.

March 3, 1976
Medical Care Act
Of this figure of 22,218, over 10,000 were injuries in the Post Office Department, and almost 7,000 of those 10,000 injuries were disabling in nature.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. Again I must remind the hon. member that this bill is not a bill on industrial safety. The hon. member may make occasional references to industrial safety, but this bill is to amend the Medical Care Act.


John R. Rodriguez: With all due respect, Madam Speaker, this bill deals with medicare and the participation of the federal government in the increasing cost of medicare. It seems to me that any kind of protection for workers which adds to the cost of the medicare program of this country is very relevant. I am saying the government has a responsibility to provide some kind of industrial safety program for their own workers so they do not become injured on the job. I am pointing out that in the Post Office Department there were 10,000 accidents in 1974-75, of which 7,000 were disabling, which means that the taxpayers of this country, through medicare, had to foot the bill.
I am suggesting that if the government were to embark upon a preventive program, we would not have to pay out of medicare this kind of expense. The government stand condemned by their lack of any program in this area. I say this is very relevant, Madam Speaker. The 7,000 disabling injuries in the Post Office Department had a direct cost of $3.5 million, not including the cost to medicare.
If the government does want to cut back on medicare costs, there are other ways of doing so. I mentioned previously that we do not have to put chronic care patients in active hospital beds at $200 a day. Surely it is not beyond the imagination of the government to find a less expensive way to treat chronic care patients. In northern communities like mine it is not necessary for a doctor to see every single patient who has suffered a scratch or a bite, or whatever it may be. We have never developed paramedics in this country so we can take care of that kind of thing. It seems to me that this whole business of slapping plasters on sores, of sticking your finger in the dike whenever you have a problem, as in this instance we have a problem with medicare costs, cannot be solved by bringing in a bill cutting back on the federal contribution to shared-cost programs, which forces everyone else down the line to do all sorts of stupid things and make illogical decisions regarding medicare.
It seems to me that this kind of legislation is not in the best interests of the Canadian people. Once more I suggest that the amendment of my colleague is a very wise one, one that would recommend itself to any logically-thinking person in the House. Therefore, I call upon the House to support the amendment that calls for a six-month postponement of this monstrosity known as Bill C-68.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, this bill will impose a particularly heavy, unfair and unjust burden upon the poorer provinces of Canada, upon the underprivileged and those in low income areas. When one speaks of the poorer provinces of Canada, my own province comes to mind. There is no way we can afford to maintain the level of health services we now have, which have been achieved under the existing legisla-
[Mr. Rodriguez.1
tion, if the present bill becomes law. It may be helpful to reconcile that statement with a few interesting statistical facts relating to the province of Newfoundland. For example, we have the highest birth rate, the lowest death rate and I believe the second lowest, if not the lowest, per capita income of all the provinces of Canada. We have taxed our people to the very limit of their capacity to pay. This is why I cannot conceive of the government bringing in a bill such as this.
When I look at the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) who pioneered in this area when he was premier of Saskatchewan, I wonder what must be going through his mind. He knows the difficulty he had to introduce the program and to get acceptance of the principle of medicare in Canada. The arbitrary action that will flow from this bill will impose great injustice upon the people of Canada, because the government is drawing from this bill the authority to make arbitrary decisions. In so doing, Madam Speaker, the government is completely destroying the very concept of equality of health care services which, to the credit of the government, under the existing legislation is a model for the world, certainly for the western world. Only a few months ago the very distinguished United States senator, Senator Kennedy, came to Canada to examine our medicare plan and at that time he referred to the program that we have in Canada under the existing legislation as a model for the free world to follow. By arbitrarily imposing ceilings on the limit that the federal government can spend, this bill is imposing restraint upon the poorer provinces.
Perhaps one could argue that the best ceiling that could be imposed upon the lower income provinces is their own capacity to meet their 50 per cent share of the cost. No one knows better than the minister of finance of the province of Newfoundland, who has to bring in a budget within a few days, that he must place restrictions on medical care payments in Newfoundland in order to keep our own health care costs under the 50-50 agreement within line. I think that fact has been lost sight of.
In talking about restraint, Madam Speaker, we call to mind the current program of the government to cut back on spending generally, with the co-operation of the provinces. We talk of restraint within the federal government itself and about eliminating expenditures on Information Canada. Similarly, the provinces are asked to show restraint in their spending. As a contribution to the fight against inflation we have cut back on our hospital building program. We have eliminated the program to provide additional hospital beds. We have cut back on our program to provide additional roads. We have cut back on our program to provide additional schools.
In some provinces these matters are taken for granted. But in the low income and underdeveloped provinces of Canada the fact of the matter is that when restraints are placed on spending, it is not on the kind of extravagances we refer to and which are being cut back in the federal government's budget. Rather, we have to put restraints on the kind of essential services that the other provinces of Canada take for granted. Let me point out, for example, that the ratio of hospital beds per thousand population in the province of Newfoundland is by far the lowest in the
March 3, 1976

country and considerably lower than the national average: it is 5.8 beds per thousand population.
The doctor-patient ratio in the province of Newfoundland is the second lowest in the country. I think perhaps it is lower in the Northwest Territories. In Newfoundland there is one doctor for every 937 people. Even these statistics are misleading because of the very wide dispersal of our population over an area of 153,000 square miles and the additional expenses that are imposed upon our province in its effort to provide minimum health care services for this widely scattered population. Naturally, the doctors tend to drift toward the large urban areas, leaving the people in the smaller outport, such as the fishermen on the coast of Labrador, without health care services apart from those provided by the provincial health nurses and, except in the more northern regions of the province, those provided by foundations such as the world renowned and well respected International Grenfell Association. As I say, these statistics are in fact misleading.
This bill gives the province a great deal of misgivings and a very deep concern about its ability to continue to maintain the level of services it has been able to achieve under the existing national 50-50 cost-sharing program. If this bill should become law, we will not be able to maintain the present level of health services because of certain indisputable facts such as the continued growth in population. Newfoundland has the highest birth rate of any province in this country. There is also the continual erosion caused by inflation and the escalation of our costs as a consequence thereof.
As I say, we have already taxed our people to the point, or perhaps even beyond the point in certain instances, of their capacity to pay. At the present time we have the distinction of having the highest sales tax in Canada. It is the highest by far. We also impose the highest gasoline tax on our people. We impose among the highest, if not the highest, income taxes on our people. Of course, there are other taxes as well which are not imposed elsewhere, such as taxes on fuel oil, and municipal taxes which have to be imposed by our smaller municipalities and, indeed, by my own city because of the very limited industrial base we have there. We have additional taxes such as those on fuel oil, entertainment, and so on.
I have already referred to the fact that unemployment continues to escalate. We continue to suffer more than any other province from the consequences of the recessionary situation that is now plaguing our economy. I dread the thought, but as this year progresses I believe our unemployment situation will become worse. There will be an even heavier burden upon the province in providing social assistance under the Canada Assistance Plan, because when we talk about these cost-sharing programs we are talking about a 50-50 situation whereby when costs escalate so far as the federal government is concerned, the same escalation takes place so far as the province is concerned and it has much less capacity to meet the escalation than the federal government with its substantial tax resources.
I hope there may be a disposition on the part of the government to reconsider the consequences of this bill. I
Medical Care Act
find it very difficult to understand why the minister has not deemed it necessary to sit down and meet with his provincial counterparts, the provincial ministers of health, or failing a full-scale federal-provincial conference of health ministers why he does not hold a series of meetings across the country on a one-to-one basis so that the minister may have some idea of the inequities of the legislation now before the House?
This legislation will create problems for the greater provinces of Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia and Alberta, but it will create horrendous problems and injustices for the developing provinces, the low income provinces, especially the four provinces of the Atlantic region. That is why I hope the minister will reconsider this legislation. I certainly commend to the House the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) to the effect that this bill not now be read a second time but that it be read a second time six months' hence. This would give us the opportunity we need to measure more accurately the impact of the bill upon the slow growth regions of the country, the poorer provinces of the country.
In closing, I should like to place on the record the position put forward at the last federal-provincial health ministers' conference by the province of Prince Edward Island, which is also the position of the province of Newfoundland. We did not participate in that conference due to circumstances beyond the control of our minister at that time. I refer to the August 18, 1975, conference held in Victoria. The following is the position of Prince Edward Island:
The implementation of Bill C-68 would have a very serious effect on the level of health care services in P.E.I.. .. Our resources are severely strained to meet the rising costs with federal contributions under the present arrangement. Under the Turner proposal, the strain would very quickly pass the breaking point... Under the new proposal it will be difficult to maintain the present standards of health care services with no hope for ever attaining the national standard.
That is the position of Prince Edward Island and it is also the position of Newfoundland. I suspect it is also the position of the province of New Brunswick, the province of Nova Scotia and the Northwest Territories.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to make some restatements which seem to me to be necessary. I must point out that the colleagues of my party who have taken part in this debate have already clearly indicated their basic objections to that bill. I will therefore state the essential points which seem to me to be so important that they should be brought forward.
. We must understand that when the House considers such a bill the difficulties which are experienced are greater when there is a basic defect and I will explain. Since the provinces are mainly responsible for health, social welfare and family matters, it is always difficult and complicated to try to coordinate and plan matters and we can only get to their core if we consider them from all their angles and under their regional aspects.
11470

March 3, 1976
Medical Care Act
And thus, having interfered for a long time in matters which should not properly be under its jurisdiction, the federal government sometimes gets tied up in quite inappropriate legislation. In my opinion, this is the case with this legislation, for in fact, Madam Speaker, why do not we give back to whom they belong the responsibilities in the matters under their jurisdiction. And if the federal government is collecting too much money through income tax and other levies, if it feels it has to interfere in issues which would normally be under the exclusive authority of the provinces, then let us make the necessary amendments and give back to the provinces the appropriate sums of money to help them meet their own responsibilities. That is what we should be speaking about rather than try to plan or coordinate the health services for the whole country.
Another point which I feel has been forgotten and on which we are not dwelling, or at least not enough, is the fact that by the very nature of the amendment proposed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), a fundamental and obvious principle is questioned: Can we play with health? In this area more than in any other, should we not rather insist exclusively on the needs, and in no way limit ourselves to medical care, most of all under the fallacious pretext of material and financial considerations?
I find it abominable to suggest that expenditures can be curtailed in this area and potentialities of improvement must be limited in as essential a field as health. I believe the minister has not adequately considered the implications of such a move. Will it not result, for instance, in the fact that people will say: Well, it is too bad, but we cannot get the medicare we need because the law prevents us from spending such an amount of money in this field? Will this type of reasoning not lead a great many individuals of this country to wonder whether this inflation control does not finally mean the suppression of a number of citizens?
Madam Speaker, one can reach all sorts of conclusions when one questions as basic a principle as people's health. All the more so that I do not really believe that in a country as large as Canada, in an impossible country geographically speaking, we could find ideal formulas? How could we possibly settle in exactly the same way health problems in the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, Quebec, British Columbia or Ontario? To think it possible, is in my view, to make the following judgment: We must leave it to each of these areas to administer efficiently the field of health and all we need do is favour each of these areas in the country so that they can provide adequate, appropriate and efficient care. Several hon. members in this House have mentioned for example that there is a lack of physicians in some regions. Elsewhere there is a lack of hospitals or clinical centres for example. One realizes there are so many disparities and there is so much diversity between the different areas that it is impossible to establish financial and monetary standards according to which the quality of care to be provided to ill people would be the least restricted.
This is why I am urging the minister and the federal government to consider the possibility of continuing negotiations with the provinces to come to an agreement which would enable them to get better organized rather

than forcing them through financial control to go as far as to reconsider the expenditures to be made in this area. Can the province of Quebec for instance afford to prevent the increase in the number of physicians which should provide better service to all the areas of Quebec? This is an example but of course all other areas in the country face the same problem. It seems to me the federal government cannot allow that. Some people say that this is not what we are aiming at, that we are simply trying to prevent squandering and abuses. That is all very well but shall we forget in the process what is the very purpose of health care? I do not think so and this is why I believe this bill may bring health care to a standstill and impede the progress which should constantly be made in that field. In other words, it may jeopardize national health, nothing less.
That is why I am against this bill and I would of course have preferred an announcement by the minister that a formal agreement has been drawn up with the provinces, which would give them much more leeway to settle all the health problems for the benefit of all areas throughout the country. Solving these problems should not entail economic cuts but on the contrary applying to the field of health care the exceptional policy of unrestricted expenses to meet the public need and not to beat inflation. In other words, if there is an area which should not be affected by the fight against inflation, it is definitely health care. Since this bill is an anti-inflation legislation, I believe we are on the wrong course and the minister should seek another solution.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, it will have been of some use. I see that even now some of my colleagues across the way seem to be in great shape. I hope to hear them speak to Bill C-68 later on, Madam Speaker. I have already had the opportunity of speaking to this bill so I shall be rather brief.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roch La Salle: I feel this is one of the best opportunities we could have of inviting the minister to reconsider his bill, to reconsider his position. What is important today is not the resignation my colleagues speak of, but Bill C-68. That is what is important!
So, Madam Speaker, having already spoken to this bill, and deplored the attitude of the government which seems to want it passed on the double, and knowing full well that, even as I speak to you now the provinces feel that this bill is anything but interesting for them, I believe that in the context of federalism whose advantages we tend to laud so readily, meeting the needs of the provinces and finding an equitable solution to allow them to co-operate fully with government are a matter of principal. But that is not the situation at the present time.
Yesterday, the parliamentary secretary, and I say I take advantage of this amendment, among others, which requests a six months' hoist. I have already asked the minister whether it might not be wise for him to have the unanimous agreement of the provinces, and a solution which may not be easy to imagine. I do not infer that the minister made no effort to get a positive reaction from the provinces,-but as he did not yet get their agreement, I think that as a representative of a political party, as a
March 3, 1976

member of parliament, it is important to request a six months' hoist from the government and the minister responsible, to allow the minister and the provincial ministers of course to reach a fair agreement for all eleven governments. Moreover, the parliamentary secretary was saying yesterday that the federal government wants the provinces to indicate clearly what they intend to do in the next five years as regards medical and hospital care. We ought to know what the financial needs will be if we want to invest in less expensive services, and we cannot expect the government to supply money without knowing what are the long term projects of the provinces.
I think the federal government is fully justified in wanting to know how much the provinces are prepared to contribute, no doubt about it. I think it is the very reason why we request and support this recommendation to the House for a six months' hoist in the application of this legislation, in order to allow the minister to get what the provinces have apparently failed to give him, and to find a solution that the provinces need to know. I know very well that on April 27 and 28, I think, a federal provincial conference will be held, gathering the provincial ministers around the same table; the province of Quebec and other provinces will certainly make propositions and, considering the increasing costs, I wonder to what extent this issue was discussed.
The provincial ministers recognize that the cost will increase, so it is unthinkable to accept that this legislation freeze the federal government's share when we all know, and there is no need to repeat-it, that the federal government invited and, in certain cases, forced the provinces to participate in this plan. Obviously, for a long time the provinces have been establishing goals, getting organized in the firm belief they could count on very generous assistance from the federal government; I would think they planned their objectives counting on the 50 per cent share which, until today, was unlimited. To what extent does the federal government have to correct abuses and waste? Maybe it did in some provinces. But to ratify a legislation which takes away, or rather allows the federal government to freeze its involvement, which leaves to the provinces the task of paying these increasing costs for reasons which may be beyond control, is unacceptable, we say, and it is for this reason that we ask the minister to reconsider his position and his decision.
Madam Speaker, I do not want to prolong the debate, but I feel that when we find that the agreement is not accepted by the provinces, in my opinion it is inconceivable, I would even say it is indecent that the government refuses to listen to the provinces and to find a solution. I wonder how the members of this government can refuse to listen to the provinces at this stage. We know perfectly well that the citizen's health is something essential. We agree that the government makes some efforts. We are aware of it. We recognize it, but we also recognize that it is impossible in such a short period on the one hand to prevent these eventualities, and on the other to embarrass the provinces and abandon them in a bad situation for which they are not alone responsible.
The involvement of the federal government was welcome by the provinces and by all Canadians, and we do not think, for the reasons mentioned by the minister or the
Medical Care Act
government, that this legislation should be applied in the short term. We recognize however that the provinces are being placed in a very difficult position and, for that reason, I take the liberty of making my comments this afternoon, because I think the government should respect the desires and needs of the provinces. I suggest this government could cooperate more and coordinate the efforts of the provinces in order to ensure public health.
Under the circumstances, Madam Speaker, I have no hesitation in saying that I will support the amendment, because I am convinced it is imperative to wait a few more weeks, that is until April, when the provinces, with the federal government representative, will have a very special opportunity to reopen discussions on this matter.
And this is the question. Why does the government refuse to wait for this conference to discuss the matter and try to reconsider this federal government proposal? Why does the government want to call upon us to agree to this legislation whereas the provinces are quite willing to return to the bargaining table here in Ottawa, to renegotiate these agreements, trying to correct abuses that have taken place, one must admit. Subsequently, it would be necessary to assess in the light of discussions a formula that is acceptable to the provinces and that will provide the maximum of medical services to those who need them in this country.
This is, Madam Speaker, what I wanted to say in an attempt to bring the minister to these negotiations, to this opportunity of discussing with the provinces, by calling upon him to think seriously of the respect his government must have for the provinces. I also urge hon. members to ask their own government to consider the arguments put forward by opposition members in this House, who try to serve the interests of the Canadian society. This legislation is not more discriminatory for one category than for another, but we are looking for equity and justice for all Canadians as well as respect for the provinces that make up our country.
In these circumstances, Madam Speaker, I will conclude by asking and pleading with the minister to at least postpone the debates in order to enable the provinces to discuss the matter with him, to give them the opportunity to provide the minister with as much information as he may need, and his parliamentary secretary did outline this need. The provinces should be able to answer the federal government when it states its intentions. It is also the federal government's responsibility to be prepared to listen to the provinces' needs and obligations and not to reject its involvement that is required to provide good services to the Canadian people.
Madam Speaker, I hope the minister will take the time to reconsider his position, and in light of the arguments made in the House and those that will follow, I think this amendment aimed at delaying the application of this bill for six months is quite valid. Even if it were only two months, this would at least allow the provinces to come back and make the proposals they want and thus hope that the minister will pay more attention to the recommendations of the provinces. The opportunity is there at the end of April when the meeting could accomplish the objective we seek-refrain from placing the provinces in a straigh-tjacket, as Bill C-68 will do, but rather being as open as
21419-34%

March 3, 1976
Medical Care Act
when we had the participation which was certainly very generous on the part of the government, which was accepted by the provinces as a whole and by all Canadians. This allowed the provinces to provide better services, more generous care to Canadians. I think we cannot thus reduce care and services for selfish reasons.
I do not think that the government is prepared to do this, and I hope that my appeal and those of my colleagues will be heard by the minister and that provincial ministers who still expect a lot from the minister in charge in Ottawa will lend an attentive ear and the provinces will finally have the opportunity to be heard at the end of April before this legislation is passed. I, for one, will oppose it as much as I can as long as the provinces do not receive that answer to which they are entitled and as long as the federal government will not take its responsibilities vis-a-vis the people of this country.


Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-68 as medicare in the area I represent is an important issue. Mine is an area of high unemployment. Its people are not the wealthiest. Before 1948 there was medical service for many areas of the north only when the minister's wife visited, when the visiting Hudson's Bay manager's wife or the service officer's wife applied a dressing or when a doctor accompanied a treaty on its annual visit to pay treaty dues to the Indians. At the same time they would X-ray people to see if they had tuberculosis. The doctor or nurse accompanying the treaty party would examine the people and the critically sick were flown to hospital. Families lived on the trap lines and it was a case of survival of the fittest, which explains the high mortality among people of the north, especially the children.
In 1948, after the churches and people in the north exerted pressure, nursing stations were established in some of the more isolated communities. Then, when the government paid people of the north family allowances, the people left the trap lines to send their children to school. This exposed them to illnesses which needed medical attention.
Community pressure made the government install radiotelephones. Without them it was impossible to summon help when someone was sick, it was impossible to get people from isolated communities to hospital, and medical service was irregular. Few aircraft served the north in those days and sometimes it took days, even weeks, to bring a person medical attention.
In 1966, Manitoba instituted the emergency landing airstrip program. It was not meant for aircraft in distress but for people who needed emergency medical help. Remember, these northern communities are not connected by a network of roads; they are mostly isolated. For some years we have tried to convince the federal government that the people of the north come under federal responsibility. The federal government says to the provinces, "Those people live in a province; you should look after them." I am not talking about treaty people; I am talking about all the people of the north.

Nursing stations set up in the north could provide only interim medical services. They were equipped with a couple of beds, were manned by nurses and were graced by a doctor who might visit once in six months. The situation has changed completely. Medical services provided at nursing stations have brought down the mortality rate of Indian children in the north. I pay tribute to those who serve at these nursing stations. Often, nurses at the stations do the work of a doctor.
Whenever I see a city ambulance rushing someone with a broken leg to hospital, its sirens blaring and lights flashing, I think of the people in my area of the north. Often it takes days for word to get to the outside world that a person is critically ill and needs medical help. So I think the government's cutting back on medicare contributions to the provinces is a step backward. The people of my area do not live next door to a hospital. There is not even a road on which you can drive a car or ambulance, if there is one. Some communities of 3,000 and more were not served by a doctor. The people of the north are now accustomed to medical service. We cannot take it away from them. We must provide medical service to people in remote areas; if we do not, mortality rates among northern Indians will again rise.
I am sure the people of the remote areas will not stand idly by and allow the federal government to do what it is trying to do. I hope this bill is defeated. I hope we can continue to supply medical service to the people of the north who must depend on the government for these services. It is the responsibility of the federal government to provide these services to the people of the north in general and the treaty people in particular.
I have spoken about the airstrip program. These airstrips were set up for emergencies in order to take people out of the area for medical treatment. However, along came the federal Department of Transport which said the airstrips could not be used for scheduled runs of aircraft. This meant that nurses in the nursing stations in many cases-I have mentioned this in the House before-actually had to pile up their patients until they could charter an aircraft to take them out. They did not have the funds necessary to transport a single person to hospital. This actually happened. I raised this matter in the House. Fortunately, someone took up the matter and before long money was provided and an aircraft could be chartered to bring out a person when sick.
This puts a great deal of responsibility on a nurse living in a remote area 250 miles away from a doctor. She does not have proper communication or other facilities. She has to decide whether a person requires emergency medical service or can he held for a couple of days until an airplane she must charter can be filled. This is asking too much of the nurses who man these nursing stations. They are doing a commendable job. However, they are not being paid as doctors; they are being paid as nurses to look after the sick until such time as they can be transported to hospital. This bill will cut back the contributions to the provinces. That cutback will be felt right down the line to hospitals in remote areas in the far month: they will also be cut back.
March 3, 1976

Over the past 20 years we have begun to see that there is a future for medical services and medical supplies in the north. It is hard to explain, but there is a feeling in the north that what we have accomplished in the last few years we will lose in a matter of two years; we will be right back to where we started. People are asking whether we can do something to upgrade our services rather than downgrading them.
I will not get into the other areas; they have been very well covered by my colleagues. I wish to emphasize again that we should not pass this bill as it will hurt our people, especially those in the remote areas where facilities are not now available. As Canadians, they deserve these services as much as anyone living close to medical facilities.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this amendment that the bill be not now read this day six months' hence, which is the same as killing the bill: and we make no bones about that. Before getting into my speech, I want to refer to some remarks I made in my first speech at second reading. I neglected to check Hansard. The Hansard reporters were probably accurate and I was not clear in what I said. On that occasion, the Solicitor General (Mr. All-mand) asked me if I remembered the answer that Tommy Douglas, a former premier of Saskatchewan, used to give for the reason he did not introduce medicare from 1944 until 1961. In the course of that reply, in which I thought I was magnificent, I said:
Mr. Speaker, I am glad my good friend the Solicitor General asked that question because he will need to rely on the history of Tommy Douglas and his fight with his own caucus and his own cabinet over not only medicare, but also capital punishment, and a few other items.
What I meant to say, and should have said, is that I wanted the Solicitor General and all members of this House to rely on the history of Tommy Douglas and the fact that he did not have to fight with his own caucus, cabinet and party, not only over medicare but also the abolition of capital punishment. I want the record to be clear that Tommy Douglas, as premier of Saskatchewan, did not have to fight with his own cabinet, caucus party over medicare, and certainly not the abolition of capital punishment. I suspect that is not the case with the Solicitor General and his cabinet colleagues over medicare, capital punishment or anything else.
I also want to refer to an interruption in the speech of my good friend, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), by a member of the official opposition. I think it was the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga). It could have been the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday); I am not sure. In any event, the interruption came from a member of the official opposition. When the hon. member for Broadview was speaking about the closure of hospitals in the province of Ontario, the hon. member from the official opposition made assertions about the province of Saskatchewan under an NDP government closing hospitals. I whispered to the hon. member for Broadview at that time that none had been closed under an NDP government. The hon. member from the official opposition then asserted, on a point of order, that one had been closed in 1972 and three had been closed in 1973, or something to that effect.
I now wish to advise hon. member of this House that since the return of health, welfare and prosperity to Sas-
Medical Care Act
katchewan under an NDP government in June, 1971, the Saskatchewan government has not closed any hospitals. I repeat, it has not closed any hospitals. As might be expected from a Liberal government, they always talk a good fight, saying how they have been in favour of medical and health care since 1919. However, when in power they forget their words, and their actions spell out what they do, as in this bill.
Under the late Mr. Thatcher, the Liberal government of Saskatchewan from 1967 on closed eight hospitals. On the return to power of the NDP in that province, all those locations were reopened as community health and social centres, attended by visiting physicians, health region nurses, social service workers and serving as a focal point for clinics, prenatal care, ambulance facilities, and so on. So those facilities have been reopened by the Blakeney government in Saskatchewan since 1971, though probably not on the same basis as before. Those are the ones that were closed under the Liberal government of premier Thatcher. I hope I have set the record straight in that regard.
Before I proceed to make further remarks upon the stupidity of the bill before us, I want to remind members of the official opposition as well as members on the government side that whereas Liberals have closed hospitals in Saskatchewan, hospitals providing eight or ten beds. I was intrigued to learn that a 61-bed hospital was being closed in Paris, Ontario, by a Conservative government. I always thought a 61-bed hospital would somehow be viable, to use a free enterprise term. I am awaiting an explanation of this from spokesmen for the Progressive Conservative party or their colleagues in the Ontario provincial government.
One of the results of this bill will be to force hospitals to reduce the number of personnel employed and curtail the number of beds available. This could mean the downgrading of what we all agree are already inadequate services being offered in many instances. The average cost of a hospital bed can range anywhere from $70 to $175 a day, depending on the care a patient needs, and I suspect these figures are on the low side. If there is to be any saving in that direction, and that is the main purpose of this measure, I am not aware of any proposals by the federal government to assist the provinces in augmenting the number of paramedics or other kinds of service-home nursing care, for example-which would reduce what we all know to be the high cost of running hospitals and, consequently, high expenditures by hospitals.
It is sometimes said there are too many people using hospitals and too many people occupying beds they do not need. I do not accept that proposition, but even if it is true, one can hardly blame the people who are in the beds, because patients do not put themselves into hospitals beds-it is doctors who put patients into hospital beds.


An hon. Member:: Who makes them sick?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It could be the Liberals or the Tories.


Mr. Oberle:: No. It is the NDP that makes them sick. We are all sick right now.

March 3, 1976
Medical Care Act


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: If those experts and oracles who operate in the Department of National Health and Welfare, as well as others outside government, who complain that hospital beds are being occupied by people who do not need them really have evidence to support what they say, I suggest they should urge the Minister of National Health and Welfare to take up the matter with medical practitioners.


Frank Oberle: The minister looks sick now.


An hon. Member:: Yes. He is throwing up.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I do not think he should take it up by way of a bill such as this and lay the onus on the provinces.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He shouldn't take it up with a judge, either.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: If the minister had been more thoughtful about hospitalization and medical care, he would have done a lot better if he could have persuaded his cabinet colleagues and his hon. friends in caucus that in a time of restraint, efforts to cut back, and so on, the very last item that should receive that kind of attention is the care available to those who are sick. There are many other areas which could be examined with a view to making cuts in expenditure.
I agree with government members who have derided the official opposition for the attitude it so often takes towards these matters. Members of the party to my right moan about too much government spending, but when one tries to pin them down to what they want to cut back, they don't come up with very much. Well, the Minister of National Health and Welfare could have about $200 million for sharing health costs with the provinces if he could persuade his colleagues in cabinet and in caucus to get out of the nonsense of NORAD, an organization which serves no useful purpose and is totally obsolete. One could go even further and suggest that the minister might try to persuade his colleagues, if not to withdraw totally from NATO at least to bring back to Canada the sitting ducks, the members of the Canadian forces presently in Europe-


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -and give them a mobile capability which would permit them to be used in the proper way in the event of some nut pushing a button in Europe, or be used in a better way in connection with peacekeeping or to aid countries which suffer natural disasters. If this were done, the minister might be able to benefit from the saving of several hundred million dollars more which could be used to provide health, medical and hospital services for the people of Canada.
I will make a further suggestion. Whatever the total expenditure amounts to for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in the seven years during which I have sat in this chamber, despite all it was supposed to do for the depressed areas of Canada, unemployment and poverty are even worse now-after seven years-than in 1968 and 1969. I suggest we should simply cancel that whole department. I would take some of that money to share with the provinces and compensate for money spent on hospital and medical services. The rest of it could be used at local, regional and provincial levels to combat

poverty and unemployment much more efficiently than at present. Mr. Speaker, I think if we follow the three suggestions I have just made we could probably save $500 million or $600 million which the minister could share with the provinces so as to provide something which is a basic right for every human being, that is to say, good health services.
Let me select a few other items. I am not interested in the picayune ones of my hon. friends to my right, such as cancelling Information Canada. Out of a $31 billion budget, $14 million is not very much. The few odds and ends selected by the government make no difference whatsoever. My quarrel is not with how much is being spent but, rather, with how the money is spent and what the government's priorities are. Surely delivery of health services, the availability of hospital treatment and beds and such things as pensions should be the last item of expenditures that the government should attack in order to get maximum benefit out of the taxpayer's dollar.
If this legislation passes we will defeat the objective of another bill we shall be dealing with shortly, Bill C-83. This bill has to do with additional facilities for rehabilitation, psychiatric and psychological care, all of which play a goodly part in the crime prevention program and come under medicare. Quite often psychiatric and psychological services are the most expensive form of health treatment, so it would be logical to assume that this part of the security provisions bill is going to suffer if we pass Bill C-68.
Then I see the doctors are asking for a raise. Poor fellows! Since the government wants to hold down funding, who will have to pick up the deficit? Obviously, the taxpayers, particularly those who are sick, ailing and disabled who make use of medical services. The doctors of Ontario are seeking an 8.1 per cent raise effective May 1. That is within the guidelines. But one thing that the doctors or the administrator of the Anti-Inflation Board fails to tell us is that 8.1 per cent for a doctor earning $70,000, $80,000 or $100,000 represents a very nice increase. Since 8.1 per cent is within the guidelines, I bet my bottom dollar this increase will be approved. The worker, whether organization or unorganized, earning $8,000 or $10,000 a year, will be told-he will be rolled back, if necessary- that 10 per cent or 12 per cent is plenty for him. An increase of $800 is fine for the working stiffs under the guidelines. An increase of $8,000 or $10,000 for a medical doctor under the guidelines is also fine.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare wants to set a ceiling on spending and has served notice on the provinces that sharing by the federal government of the cost of these services has now reached its limit. Manitoba was not consulted about cost-sharing. In fact, that province makes the point that Bill C-68 has been superseded by the anti-inflation legislation and therefore this bill should be withdrawn.
In Saskatchewan, the federal government participates in the cost of hospitalization and medical care. Nevertheless, Saskatchewan is left to bear by itself the $6 million den-ticare program. The program is in its infancy, we do not have all the kinks out of it yet, but it took almost three years of hard work and planning and co-operation from the
March 3, 1976

dental profession to get the plan under way and provide dental care for children up to 12 years of age. We hope to increase it by one year each so that eventually children up to 16 or 18 will be covered.
Then there is the Saskatchewan hearing-aid program which put an end to the chicanery and outrageous operations of some of the hearing-aid outlets. This program will now be borne by the people of Saskatchewan alone, through their government, to the tune of another $12 million. I apologize, Mr. Speaker, I am mistaken there. The pharmacare program is costing $12 million. There are so many good programs in Saskatchewan that I am getting my list out of order. All that any citizen of Saskatchewan pays for drugs is the dispensing fee of $2 under the pharmacare program. We are carrying the cost of this program without any sharing on the part of the national government.
The hearing-aid program in Saskatchewan will cost another $600,000 a year, and we estimate the cost will quickly climb to $1 million. In any event, there is upward of $20 million from those three programs that the province of Saskatchewan, historically leading the way for all Canada, is paying for itself and which the federal government should be sharing, not only with Saskatchewan but with all other provinces in this country.
Allowing for a 1.5 per cent increase in population, I say this is unfair to Saskatchewan, with its growing population. People are moving to Saskatchewan from other provinces. One of the principles behind cost-sharing between the federal and provincial governments is that no matter where a Canadian lives, his fundamental right to the best possible hospital and medical care should be available, whether he be living in a poor province, a rich province or a territory.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare says that the provinces should better the health of the people by introducing legislation covering seat-belts, industrial safety, control of alcoholism, drug addiction, and so on. While I invite the Minister of National Health and Welfare to take a look at the program in Saskatchewan, I also speak for the other provinces and programs such as Aware, the programs on alcoholism and drug addiction, and the amount of money that has been spent on these programs through the media, through lectures and meetings and whatever else that province is doing which I expect they are carrying on by themselves.
The minister can urge the provinces to do all these things in order to improve the health condition of the population, but in the meantime, what does he do? He goes on his merry way, defeating everything. Nothing is done about arsenic poisoning in Yellowknife, about mercury poisoning at Grassy Narrows, or about mining accidents. There is the misuse of dangerous gases and other substances that are federal rather than provincial offences. In addition, the minister does not say what the government is doing to enforce stringent measures in respect of many corporations in order to bring them to account. Instead, he tells the provinces to do more about improving the health condition of their populations. There he sits, I suppose counting his money.
Medical Care Act
Let me return to the situation in the province of Manitoba. That province is unalterably opposed to this bill. The province has not been consulted in respect of cost-sharing. In the spring of 1975 the minister made statements about a review of the cost-sharing formula and negotiations which were to take place. Then, without warning along comes the budget of the previous minister of finance with the notice of intention to withdraw from hospital care and to place limits on the governments' medicare contribution. The provinces, bless their hearts, wanted to have a meeting of ministers in order to find out how the federal government could possibly reconcile the position of the Minister of National Health and Welfare with the position of the former minister of finance.


Mr. Nystrom:: It is impossible.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I guess it is impossible, because no such meeting was called. The deputy minister attempted to call together his provincial counterparts last fall, but the provinces have taken the position that there will be no meeting of staffs until the federal government has explained its position to the ministers. We are still waiting. In fact, Manitoba makes the point that Bill C-68 has now been superseded by the anti-inflation program and that therefore Bill C-68 should be withdrawn. In fact, Manitoba was even surprised that this bill was introduced in the House. In the past, the federal government went around encouraging the provinces to get into health programs, but now when the going gets tough the federal government wants to get out of its share of the responsibility. I repeat, the feeling of Manitoba in respect of Bill C-68 is that it is an insult because of lack of consultation. That province believes it is fatuous and that it is unnecessary because of the so-called anti-inflation program.
I should like now to talk about the province of Saskatchewan. We in that province believe this action by the government is a case of bad faith. The budget and Bill C-68 are an example of bad faith. There has been a lack of bargaining on the part of the federal government. In 1975 the plan was that the federal and provincial governments would come to an agreement concerning the control of doctor and hospital costs. This was the plan until the budget of June 23. The federal government, without consultation, changed the rules.
Because of wage and price controls-or wage controls, which is what we have in effect-the effect of the government's reneging on its contribution to medicare is not as severe in respect of the provincial budgets as it would have been. But what happens when the controls come off? Saskatchewan agrees that, given the federal government's control program, Bill C-68 really is unnecessary. This happens to coincide with the position taken by the province of Manitoba. Why is Bill C-68 being introduced? Has the federal government no faith in it? Saskatchewan doctors, for example, are willing to limit their incomes to conform to the guidelines so long as they are sure that prices will be controlled. Even the doctors are saying they will abide by the controls. In Saskatchewan they are limiting the increase in income to the $2,400 maximum allowed by the controls.
We can imagine how bad it is if even the doctors agree. Since even the doctors are saying they will conform to the

March 3, 1976
Medical Care Act
controls as long as prices are controlled, does the federal government really believe it will be completely unable to effectively control prices? That is an answer we have not been able to get. Certainly there have been no results in spite of the statements by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) over the last few days to the effect that the program is really working. It may be working in respect of incomes, but it certainly is not working in respect of prices.
In September the minister refused to give the province an answer in respect of what new programs would be eligible for cost-sharing. Since September the provinces have received no word from him on this point. There is mention in Bill C-68 of arrangements for federal sharing and contribution in this regard. When will the minister tell us what programs he is prepared to negotiate with the provinces relating to cost-sharing? Saskatchewan would be very interested to know from the minister what the situation is in respect of pharmacare, denticare, hearing-aids and many of the other things that should have been in effect for many years. There are also things such as home nursing, expanded ambulance service and much more that we want to do and which need to be done.
The minister has been having talks with the provincial health and welfare ministers and their staffs. He has told them he favours shifting part of the cost of home care and nursing homes to the health budgets, but he has not said that he is prepared to cost-share such programs. The provinces want to know what is to be shared by the federal government. The provinces are still waiting to hear from the minister.
Even more important than medicare, in terms of money, are hospital and diagnostic services. When will the minister make clear what he has in mind for funding these programs, or does he simply intend to let the five years run out and leave the provinces holding the bag? It will be interesting to hear about this from the minister. At present the federal government participates in substantially less than 50 per cent of health care programs across the country. Of these, it pays approximately 50 per cent. In provinces like Saskatchewan it participates in approximately 60 per cent of all health care programs, leaving the province to pick up all of the cost of programs such as denticare, pharmacare, hearing-aids, and so on.
When new programs are introduced, the federal government often withdraws whatever little support it may be giving in that area. For example, when Saskatchewan brought in its hearing-aid program the federal government withdrew its support in respect of hearing-aids for Indians. Here we have these great humanitarian Liberals who wanted to share in the cost of a program on health care for Canadians taking this position. Talk about Mr. Scrooge at Christmastime! These are nothing but a bunch of cheap, inhumanitarian chisellers. As soon as Saskatchewan brought in the hearing-aid program, the federal government withdrew its support for hearing-aids for native people. Is the Minister of National Health and Welfare so hard up that he has to resort to that kind of two-bit chiselling?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Chief Big Chiseller.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He does that and says that the province's universal program which it paid for itself could cover Indians as well, and they are a federal responsibility. I have heard proposals from hon. members of the official opposition regarding this business of universality and deterrent fees. In my most friendly and kind way I should like to warn my good friends in the Progressive Conservative party to be very careful about anything their leader or former aspiring leaders say about the implementation of deterrent fees, because I should like to refresh their memories about what happened to a Liberal government in the province of Saskatchewan with regard to the implementation of deterrent fees. Deterrent fees are nothing more than purely and simply a tax on the sick. Politicians are honourable people, and politics is an honourable and worth while profession.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: However, politicians are not perfect, and I want to remind my hon. friends in the Progressive Conservative party that deterrent fees killed the Liberal party in Saskatchewan. That is one of the major things which killed it. I am trying to be friendly in urging my colleagues to my right that if their present leader or other former aspirants for the leadership open their big mouths about deterrent fees, their colleagues had better step on them quickly.
One of the basic principles of a hospital and medical care program, and all the ancillary services which go with it, is that it is universal. I was saddened and distressed when I read in the leaflets, statements and quotes of the new Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) that he questions the universality provision in social programs. I think that is a direct quote.


Mr. Epp:: Are you sure?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: If I am not accurate, I am certainly very close in my paraphrasing. If I am totally inaccurate about that, I am confident some of my colleagues will rise in their place and set me straight, but I think I am very accurate on that. I remind the official opposition and the government that it was during the 1972-74 period when we forced the government to restore universality with regard to family allowances, which is one of the specific items the new leader of the Progressive Conservative party happened to mention in questioning the universality of social programs.
In addition, I remind my hon. friends to the right and across the way that it was the official opposition, the New Democratic Party and the Social Credit party which forced the government to keep universality in family allowances. I just hope there will not be a 180 degree turn by the Progressive Conservative party, because I remind the House that we finished straightening out the Liberal party on that only a couple of years ago.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has now expired.


Some hon. Members:: Let him go on.
March 3, 1976


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I wish to intervene in this debate and express yet another view but one which is similar to those expressed by some of my hon. colleagues who have already spoken, and there have been many. I represent a constituency in one of the "have" provinces. My province is one most of the people from Saskatchewan move to when they get sick and tired of the type of programs the previous speaker was espousing. However, the constituency I represent is of a rural and isolated nature and Bill C-68 affects that kind of area as much as it does the have-not provinces, for example, the maritime provinces about which my colleague from Newfoundland spoke earlier.
The provinces are worried about this bill for the same reasons they were worried in 1968 when they told the then minister that they did not entirely believe the federal government was serious enough to carry on an equal partnership in this arrangement forever. The way the economy was going then, they did not think that the federal government had the resources to carry on this equal partnership or even to embark on it. However, the essential ingredient which finally made the provinces change their minds was the assurance that the federal government would at no point renege on the program and on the responsibilities it entered into.
The provinces were worried for the same reasons they are worried about other schemes of extravagance the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) has been talking about in recent times. The guaranteed income program which the minister wanted to have implemented by July of 1975 is another universal program the responsibility for which must be shared equally by the provinces. But the provinces repeated the arguments they made in 1968, saying that the time was not right to embark on schemes of extravagance without solving some of the other problems inherent in our society.
I begin to wonder when it will ever be possible for the minister again to sit down with the provinces and work out a program of equalization of opportunity in our country. The universality of a program may be in the field of education, health or any other social service. When will the provinces ever be able to sit down with that minister again and have faith in anything he tries to sell them?


An hon. Member:: Never.


Frank Oberle: It is terribly important that we have some form of co-operative federalism in this modern day and age. The very diversified regions of our country have moved closer together through better transportation facilities and better communications systems. It is important that opportunities are equal, wages are equal and incomes are equal in various regions and, indeed, that social services and quality of life are equal in all parts of our country. It is for this reason that the federal government has to assume an ever greater role in providing and managing some of these services in the fields of health care and
Medical Care Act
social administration, socioeconomic development and education.
That is why it is so important for the federal government to develop a much better relationship with the provinces and a much better trust between it and the provincial governments so that these services can be spread equally across the country. However, it is important that the "have" provinces continue to share their wealth with those that are deprived of some of the fortunes of natural resources and benefits of our heritage.
Mr. Speaker, the government has decided that in the first year the program will have a 13 per cent ceiling on increases, and the following year a IOV2 per cent ceiling. The anti-inflation program, however, wants to hold cost increases to 10 per cent this year and reduce them to 8 per cent or less the following year. This indicates to people who will be affected by this bill that the government does not have faith in its anti-inflation program. The government is doing what it has always done, that is, telling people in business and labour, "Do as we say, not as we do." Obviously the government is showing no intention of living by its own anti-inflation program nor to insist that the provinces do so.
I have had arguments with the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacDonald) about increases in rates and fees that have affected the cost of living of many Canadians due to certain actions taken by provincial Crown corporations. When the minister sold us the anti-inflation program he said that Crown corporations, since they are affected differently by the Income Tax Act and other government services, would have to live by the federal anti-inflation program and that the federal Anti-Inflation Board would have jurisdiction over them. That is not the intention of the government now, however; it seems it does not intend to insist that government agencies or Crown corporations be tied to the guidelines of the anti-inflation program. This is a very significant point, and my colleagues in this House should think about it. They continue to tell Canadians, "Do as we say, not as we do." We are no better than other Canadians, Mr. Speaker. They should not worry about increasing our own benefits and services by 16 per cent or 20 per cent; after all, we are doing it for the good of society, and the rest will have to look after themselves!
The other thing that worries me about the minister's decision to place ceilings on these programs, without consultation with the provinces, is what comes next? After the third year, will the minister take the same step that the then minister of finance took on June 23 when he announced that yet another program which participated in the hospital insurance program would be phased out over five years? That is what the provinces are afraid of and it is what they are expecting.
All my colleagues who have spoken in this House-and, indeed every Canadian-agree that costs have risen at a rate which is not acceptable in light of the reserves and resources available to feed these programs. No one would argue that we do not need better social services in the future. It is not right that a province like Saskatchewan should have a dental care program, or a union should have achieved a program of some form of health or dental care

March 3, 1976
Medical Care Act
that is not available to all Canadians. What we are establishing is a system of class distinction, Mr. Speaker, a system of inequality. Equality, after all, has to be the basis of these programs. It is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure that whatever benefits are derived from the gross national product and the sale of our resources are distributed in a manner more in tune with the needs of the various regions.
What has the federal government offered or done to earn the respect of the provinces and slow down the increase in or halt the inflationary cycle? Has it met with the provinces? Has there been any consultation, any offer to share a lower cost program? I should like to refer to the program of intermediate care facilities. My colleagues and I have spoken about this before and have asked the minister to offer the provinces a 50 per cent program to establish a system of intermediate care facilities. One of the minister's officials wrote to me and said that as early as May, 1973, the federal government was having discussions with the provinces about the establishment of such a program. Certainly the provinces would like an intermediate care program. It would relieve the shortage of acute beds in hospitals and would cut the cost of patient care in nursing homes or under a home care program by 75 per cent.
It is argued that 40 per cent of patients occupying acute hospital beds should live in some other environment. We have some intermediate care facilities for senior citizens. They are known as chronic care hospitals, institutions where a patient might occupy an acute bed for five or six years and then is sent to a chronic care facility to live out his last days.
During the election campaign in 1972 I visited some of these chronic care hospitals and talked to patients. It was a rural area, a deprived area but rich in human resources. I remember a little old lady who told me that she had lived with her husband in the city of Prince George all her life. They had run a business and brought up five children. The children moved away and she and her husband, then in their mid-seventies, were living in the old folks' home. The husband contracted a terminal illness, and there was no bed for him in the acute hospital so it was decided to move him into one of these chronic care facilities.
There was then no such facility in Prince George. It was decided that this poor old man would be moved either 200 miles north or 350 miles south to a chronic care facility. He had no option but to go. He chose the southern location, Penticton, British Columbia. But in Penticton there was no provision in the chronic care hospital for his wife to be with him. Can you imagine that? This poor old man was moved to Penticton but his wife had to stay in Prince George, where she still lives, her husband having passed on. She came to me and said, "Mr. Oberle, for the past two months I have been crying myself to sleep. My husband, too, is crying himself to sleep every night." Indeed I, too, find it hard to fight back my emotions when I describe this barbaric way of implementing a health care program in our country.
Can the minister say why it has not been possible to establish, with the co-operation of the provinces, a program of intermediate care, a program to serve people who
(Mr. Oberle.)
do not require acute care hospital beds or the attendance of a doctor every morning and afternoon? Why has this not been done?


Marc Lalonde: The question was answered in my speech.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, the minister's speech did not impress me. He tried to put the blame on the provinces and said in so many words that health care is a provincial responsibility. The provinces cannot trust the minister. He says one thing one day and another the next. The government said one thing in 1968 and another four years later. The same can be said of other programs in which the provinces have participated with the federal government. The provinces are afraid that the federal government will force them to participate in other programs and will then get out of the picture. No, the answer is not in the minister's speech. It does not explain the lack of intermediate care facilities. The minister must re-establish the confidence of the provinces, a confidence which has been eroded in recent times, particularly since the minister assumed responsibility for this portfolio.


Marc Lalonde: Of course, you are laughing when you say that.


Walter David Baker: The provinces are not laughing, according to what I hear.


Frank Oberle: The federal government, using the resources at its disposal, has taken upon itself to meddle in all aspects of our national life. The Minister of Finance is right in saying that the government does not control all expenditures included in the estimates. Some expenditures represent transfer payments to provinces. At one time such payments were transferred differently. This government considers itself as the major tool for distributing all benefits, all the wealth in this country. Everyone is to pay money into the central coffer and the government is to pay it out to the different areas of this country according to its own priorities.
We are not overly enthusiastic about the government's priorities. We do not much like the manner in which much of our money is spent. It occurs to me that, having established the medicare program which is now functioning well, the government will implement another program in which it will try to involve the provinces. I am thinking about the guaranteed income. I serve notice on the minister that the provinces will not go along with his schemes unless there are much stronger guarantees that the federal government will not pull out. The provinces are unwilling to participate with the government in programs involving so-called cost-sharing. Some day, when we can afford the guaranteed annual income, the minister may be surprised because the provinces will not run after him like little boys, eager to sign on the dotted line, unless there are better assurances that the federal-provincial partnership will last longer than in the case of medicare. The minister had better consider taking up faith healing.


Marc Lalonde: Is that a branch of medicine?


Frank Oberle: He had better heal the faith of the provinces in the federal government. Right now they lack faith. He had better consider how to re-establish the sort of co-oper-
March 3, 1976

ation federalism which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) says is necessary if this country is to compete with the world's advanced industrialized nations. I remind the minister that other nations have established programs well attuned to meeting the needs of their peoples, and we can learn from them.
I plead with the minister to reconsider this bill or, at worst, to accept the hon. member's motion and delay second reading for six months. In those six months he could consult the provinces and say, "Look, this time I will tell you the truth." That's the Prime Minister's favourite trick. When something goes wrong, he says, "Well, last time we tried it, the anti-inflation program did not work. This time, it will." Perhaps the minister could approach the provinces and say, "Look, fellows, this time we will tell you the truth for a change. Let's get together." In the next six months the minister could examine the entire program and consider alternate ways of reducing the high cost of medicare. It might be possible to reduce costs by more than 13 per cent. He could work out an agreement with the provinces whereby nursing and intermediate care facilities would be available for those in acute, active treatment beds and perhaps save a good portion of the cost. The minister would have breathing space, and the reduced cost of the program would eliminate the need for expensive hospital construction.
We need improved facilities for native peoples. In the broad picture, we must consider the needs of native people who live in subhuman conditions in the bush. Sometimes a native child enters hospital with a common cold or minor illness. Doctors are reluctant to release such children from hospital until they are fully satisfied there will be no recurrence of the illness or that there is not some more serious, underlying sickness which has been caused by the child's home environment which, more often than not, does not meet acceptable standards. We need more intermediate care and nursing home facilities adjacent to reservations and in northern communities to serve both white people and native peoples, who often live in subhuman conditions. Or, if the nurse could visit a patient at his home, his $200 a day hospital bed would be available for others. The doctor would not have to make daily visits and bill the minister for them.
These are serious proposals. They have not only been discussed and studied by members of this House but by municipal, regional and provincial governments. If the minister were really serious, he would not have had to expose himself to the extent he did in allowing the trust that was once the essence of federalism in Canada to deteriorate further than it has in the past few years as a result of some of these unilateral opting out exercises in which the federal government has been engaged.
There is still time. Let us hoist this bill for six months so that we can get together and seriously talk about this problem. I assure the minister he will end up with a result of which he will be proud and delighted. It would be much less than 13 Vi per cent or 10 per cent. I ask the minister to take this matter seriously. Give us a chance to sit down and find a solution to this very serious problem that is more attuned to the needs of our time.
Medical Care Act


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to say I am reluctant to enter this debate at this time. I have as much interest in medicare as anyone in this House. I had intended to leave the discussion of this bill to my colleagues who have more knowledge and expertise in medical matters. There have been some excellent presentations on the substance of Bill C-68 and the amendment. A number of sound proposals have been made which would make this legislation more meaningful and pertinent to the concept of medicare. I have, however, been dragged into this debate because of what this bill is doing to the people in my constituency, and to the federal minister, allowing that some provincial decisions have been made. The people in my area will be adversely affected in the future if this bill passes in its present form.
Although this bill has been stripped bare by other members of the House, my colleagues in particular, and has been exposed for what jt is, a cop-out on the part of the federal government, we have not seen any sign that the government is prepared to withdraw the bill, or greatly alter it, at least until after consultations have been held with the affected provinces.
As some members have already pointed out, Ontario entered the federal medical scheme with a great deal of reluctance and even some apprehension. Our provincial government was not under any illusions as to the advisability of entering into a federal program of this nature. We knew at the outset that the provincial medical care program was superior to the federal program that we were asked to join. We also knew what we were dealing with in this case. There was no way we could be sure that the federal government would honour this agreement. We, like the other provinces, knew that this government's record of keeping its word was hardly conducive to placing very much faith in this particular federal-provincial agreement. In short, Mr. Speaker, we were conned into joining the federal program, and now we see in Bill C-68 the first step in the federal government's plan to opt out of a program of which it was the chief architect.
Back in 1966 when he was minister of national health and welfare, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) said health is not a privilege tied to the state of one's bank account but, rather, a basic right which should be open to all. The minister would have been closer to the point if he had said that health care, not health, is the basic right of all citizens. Much as we would like, no government can guarantee good health to any of its citizens, but certainly we can guarantee good health care to all our citizens, and in plain fact we cannot do any less than that.
The conviction that universal medical and hospital care is the right of all citizens, regardless of their financial capability, was the basis of the medicare system that we had in Ontario when the federal government came along in 1969 and forced us to join what was touted to be a better system. We know now that it was not a better system then, and we know that it is not a better system now, but we entered into the federal medicare program in good faith and it is not we who are reneging.
As far back as 1968, Mr. Speaker, the treasurer of Ontario asked, when discussions were taking place between federal and provincial officials on the joint medicare plan, what

March 3, 1976
Medical Care Act
guarantee we had that the federal government would not cut us loose if it decided that it wanted out of the program. Well, we have found out what guarantees we had. We had the government's word, and we all know just how much this government's word is worth. Betting that this government will keep its word is the best way I know of losing your money.
One effect of this bill is to force the government of Ontario to make a complete assessment of the provincial medicare and hospital insurance programs. In one way this is a good thing, because over the years it is inevitable that a certain amount of fat and duplication will develop in even the most efficiently administered programs. However, the hospital closing program now under way in Ontario has hit my riding. It is getting too close to home for my comfort, because my constituents are up in arms over the closings, especially the closing of the hospital at Clinton. I have a call in right now for a conference with the premier and provincial minister of hospital services. I hope to be able to convince them that the closing of the Clinton hospital should be reviewed and, hopefully, reversed.
My constituents are just as angry with the federal government, though, because they are beginning to realize that the government of Ontario is being forced into this move by the announced intention of the federal government to squirm out of the federal-provincial medicare program. I cannot blame my people for getting up in arms over this matter, Mr. Speaker. In recent years I cannot remember a single issue that has aroused as much public indignation and public hostility in my riding as the announcement that Clinton hospital would be closed. My file of letters on the Clinton closing, letters from concerned citizens as well as from those whose jobs will be eliminated by the closing, is growing each day and I suspect that it is only the beginning. As the date for the closing gets closer, I can foresee a concerned public effort to head off this threat to the well-being of the people of Huron county.
The program of hospital closings in Ontario was predicted long ago, even before Ontario was drawn into the federal government's ill-starred medicare and hospital insurance programs. Many people at that time expressed doubts about entering into a cost-sharing agreement of this type with the federal government. We were warned of the possibility that the government would some day decide to back out of the agreement and turn the provinces loose as if to say that this is the way things are done. We know that this is the way the present government does things, but we also know that it is not the right way.
I now wish to turn to some of the attributes of the Clinton hospital and some of the methods used by the provincial government. In a meeting with the hospital board on Thursday, February 19, Mr. Miller, the provincial minister of health, stated that the basis for closing the Clinton public hospital was, one, it was comparable to one other hospital and, two, geographically it was central in Huron county and that users of the hospital could go to other hospitals for service.
We strongly protest that stated rationale for closing the Clinton public hospital. The minister seemed to use the

word "comparable" to mean equal, on a par, similar, or having the same facilities. We cannot conceive how the ministry, in using the data available, could possibly conclude that the Clinton public hospital is, by any of the above definitions, "comparable" with the hospital named, let alone with others in Huron county.
Statistically, in terms of average cost per patient day, average cost per patient stay, wages paid, length of stay, per cent of occupancy and paid hours per patient day, we believe that the Clinton public hospital compares very favourably with the other hospitals in Huron county. We believe the ministry also has data to indicate that the degree of activity in surgery, pediatrics, obstetrics, laboratory, radiology, physiotheraphy and emergency service is in no way less than the two smaller hospitals in Huron county and probably equal to the larger hospitals in Huron county. From a medical staff brief, the minister ought to be aware of the fact that Clinton public hospital has quite a few services that many other hospitals have; for example, coronary care, surgery, and dialysis.
Has the minister examined the age population of the patients in the Huron county hospitals for 1975? No fewer than 32.9 per cent of the patients in Clinton public hospital are from 15 to 44 years of age. Only 22 per cent are 65 years of age or over, and 23.1 per cent are 45 to 65 years of age. Clinton public hospital is not an under-active hospital. We submit that Clinton public hospital is comparable in that it is providing more services than most community hospitals, for less cost and equally efficiently to all our citizens, especially to those with years of productivity ahead of them. We do agree with financial restraints, better management and best use of health dollar, but we cannot comprehend the logic of a ministy that proposes to cut costs in health care by choosing to eliminate the hospital that seems to us to be giving the people excellent use of the health dollar.
The minister's second argument is one of geography. He reasons that the users of Clinton public hospital would go to the other hospitals of Huron county. We know that at present these surrounding hospitals have been told by the ministry of health that there is to be no increase in inpatient activity. How, then, can Clinton patients go to the surrounding hospitals to be serviced if they are not allowed to increase their service? How can one go to a facility for a particular service if that facility does not have the staff nor equipment for that particular service? Is the minister expecting that one or each of the four remaining hospitals will obtain the staff and equipment from Clinton public hospital for these services? There have been no plans for such moves. The minister has not indicated that there will be funds for this but, rather, has indicated that the surrounding hospitals will have considerable restraints imposed on them. Is the minister assuming that Clinton public hospital's equipment and staff will be graciously given to the surrounding hospitals, remembering that it was the citizens of the community who raised the funds for this equipment?
How long will it take for these services to be available in other facilities and for staff to be trained in their use? It has taken years to develop coronary care, just to name one service. It cannot but take months or years for these same services to once more become available to citizens of
March 3, 1976

Huron county. We wonder if they really will become available in our present time of restraints. Will other hospitals place these services on top priority if they involve additional costs? How can they hire Clinton nursing staff to provide the nursing care for these services if they already have sufficient staff but are limited in funds to hire, train or develop?
Has the minister examined the referral system in this county and seen that patients, if referred, usually go to London rather than to other hospitals, or that they come to Clinton for service? They do not go from Clinton to other local hospitals because the service and the care is not the same. Is the minister assuming that the feelings and patterns of people in the district about the surrounding hospitals are going to change so that they will go to the doctors using these hospitals, even if Clinton doctors' privileges are granted elsewhere, and be content with the services they provide, when you deny them the hospital, staff and service they have built and developed?
If the minister's argument really is on the basis of geography, then he ought to recognize that persons in the outlying areas of Huron county could, and do, more readily come to Clinton than travel across country to these outlying areas. It is for this very reason that Clinton public hospital has in the past few years continued to improve service rather than stagnate, and has provided increased service at reasonable cost.
If people have to travel across-country for service, for example, from Clinton to Exeter or from Clinton to Sea-forth, they might just as well go a little bit farther on to London or Stratford, where comparable services are found. But these latter areas are to have restraints imposed upon them as well. These facilities also cost more. Where, then, is the dollar saving? Clinton is now providing the needed services at far less cost per day. How can the minister justify deleting this facility if the alternatives he proposes cost more?


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: This is all provincial.


Robert Elgin McKinley: I take off at anyone I think is doing wrong.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Hear, hear!


Robert Elgin McKinley: We submit that by closing Clinton public hospital the minister is promoting a decrease in service to citizens of Huron county. By not planning for alternatives or ways to maintain these services he is abdicating his responsibility to provide service and the best use of the health dollar to the people of Huron county. At the same time he prohibits the citizens of Clinton area from contributing toward making the best use of their health dollar by closing their hospital-not on the grounds of inefficien-
Medical Care Act
cy, mismanagement, overstaffing, lack of service, but on the grounds of geography.
The minister has a responsibility to prove to us that we are mismanaging and deserve to be closed, and that other hospitals are not mismanaging and deserve to be left open. But the ministry has not, neither privately nor publicly, stated this. We also submit that the minister has little considered the economic impact that this closure, the second in Huron county, will have on the people in this community. The minister has forced this upon us, yet has made little provision for the community to retain these employed citizens or to relocate elsewhere in this province where needed.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


Robert Elgin McKinley: I shall just be one more minute, Mr. Speaker. Nobody desires to go on unemployment to impose an extra drain on our coffers, yet this is what many will be forced to do. This is unfair financially and morally. The minister has stated that the people of Huron county should provide alternatives to the closure of Clinton public hospital between now and the date of an appeal. Yet he is well aware that at present there is no district health council to present such a proposal that is acceptable to all of Huron county. In order to remain, the minister has stated that our only apparent recourse is to prove that we are better and that other facilities should go rather than Clinton public hospital. By so doing, Clinton would be forced to become a villain in the eyes of the public and our colleagues in health care.
The citizens of Clinton community are very loth to declare that other facilities in Huron county are inferior to theirs. It is insufferable that in this day and age the government should indicate to us that this is the tactic we must adopt in order to survive and provide what we believe is quality service to the people of Huron county.
I have one suggestion to make to the minister. Instead of closing down hospitals like Clinton completely, I believe sufficient money could be saved, without a shocking decrease in the availability of health care, by cutting back some beds in all hospitals or by charging a user fee or initial fee to those using hospital and doctor care. I hope the provincial government will reconsider its decision to close the Clinton hospital, and I reiterate my willingness to attend a meeting with the Premier of Ontario and Mr. Miller, if it can be arranged.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) rising on a point of order?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I was going to call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is already past six o'clock. This House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 6.01 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.



Thursday, March 4, 1976