1978-11-27

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I rise on the basis of President Carter having virtually ended the OPEC style of co-operation, having launched an aggressive marketing strategy for wheat in China and apparently taking for granted that Canada has made herself vulnerable to competition. I therefore move:
That this House calls on the government, in order to preserve and expand the market in China which was secured under my government and has continued since, to send a delegation immediately to Peking, composed of representatives of the Departments of Industry, Trade and Commerce and of Agriculture, the Wheat Board and national farm organizations.
Some bon. Members: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Introduction of such a motion for debate at this time would require unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?



PENITENTIARIES


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to seek the unanimous consent of this House. In view of the tragic incident which occurred yesterday at Collins Bay penitentiary in Kingston, when custodial officer Francis Eustace, and food services officer Paul Maurice, lost their lives in the line of duty, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais):
That this House expresses its deep sympathy to the bereaved families of these dedicated public servants.


Mr. Speaker:: Introduction of such a motion can be done only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it could be that this is the day when the House will recognize the extreme urgency of this matter. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters):
That this House calls on the Minister of Veterans Affairs to introduce at an early date an amendment to the Pension Act to provide for prorata pensions for widows of disabled veterans where the disability of the veteran was assessed below 48 per cent, it being clearly recognized that all members of this House of Commons would be pleased to pass such an amendment before Christmas.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such motion for debate, pursuant to Standing Order 43, can be done at this time only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



STATUS OF WOMEN


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Because of the significant and disturbing delay by the Advisory Council on the Status of Women in the publishing of their annual evaluation on the advancement of women in the public service, and since this delay appears to be caused by the extraordinary action of sending preliminary copies of the report to the Public Service Commission itself for its comments, criticism and possible censorship, and that this essentially deprives parliament and the public of a full, frank and objective report, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That the minister responsible for the status of women act immediately to ensure the report is published at once without amendment or deletion.

November 27, 1978


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



CONGRATULATIONS TO PLAYERS IN GREY CUP GAME-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: As a former colleague of those who played in the Grey Cup, and as the owner of a jersey which bears the number 54, which is held in such awe by the Eskimos that they have been afraid to retire it, I would ask leave to move:
That this House congratulates all players in the Grey Cup game for continuing the tradition of exciting Canadian football which is now part of our sporting tradition.
Since I have quoted from my jersey, Mr. Speaker, I understand that I will have to table it, which I now do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[ Translation]



INDUSTRY


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, 1 ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion.
In view of the fact that in its last budget the government decided to reimpose a 5 per cent tax on doors and windows because they are not considered as acceptable insulating materials, and since over 450 small businesses in Quebec alone will be seriously affected by that decision, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House ask the government to review its decision and abolish that 5 per cent tax.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



POST OFFICE


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to ask the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with a matter of urgent and public concern.
In view of the fact that charitable and social service organizations, such as the War Amputations Association, Care Canada, and many others are finding it increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to use the postal service for fund-raising because of service disruptions and constantly increasing postal rates, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That the Postmaster General, following the example of the United States and other democratic countries, be directed forthwith to grant preferred postal rates to qualifying charitable and social service organizations, so as to ease their present financial difficulties and not be forced to cut back or eliminate vitally important programs to disadvantaged groups in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate at this time would require unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce the following motion.
In view of the fact that the National Film Board has been set up to undertake and promote the production and distribution of films in the national interest and more especially to get Canadians acquainted with Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail):
That the NFB immediately reconsider its decision to remove French regionalization in Ontario and western Canada and that it withdraw the freeze on the Acadian regionalization.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43, presentation of such a motion for debate requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?
November 27, 1978


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



FINANCE


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the Elouse to move a motion on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity.
Considering that the 3 per cent tax cut at the manufacturer's level which has been in force since November 17, 1978 will have a negative effect for car dealers, unless the measure is amended, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That this 3 per cent tax cut applies on vehicles on inventory or in transit.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of the National Firearms Association's press release from Winnipeg today, stating that selected members of the Winnipeg police force have been given a special course on the new firearms control regulations and the stated objective is to disarm the Canadian public within the next five years, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That the Minister of Justice make a statement on motions today stating whether or not the stated purpose is government policy or in any way authorized by an order in council.


Mr. Speaker:: The introduction of such a motion for debate at this time, pursuant to Standing Order 43, would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. The Auditor General has documented, within the Department of Transport, items of poor financial control, cost overruns, poor contracting procedures and inefficient management which have totalled, in recent years, a cost to the taxpayer of S572.2 million. How can the minister justify this appalling waste and his failure to adequately supervise the expenditure of taxpayers' dollars?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the items to which the Auditor General referred very often occurred a number of years ago. In virtually every case, procedures have been put in place to try to make sure that whatever may have led to the problem in the first instance could not occur again. That has been a very important development for us.
In the case of airport facilities, for example, we have instituted very thorough, ongoing consultations with the users of facilities in order to have a complete double-check on the question of the scope of the needs for a particular facility.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the minister about two particular areas. First, the cost of the Calgary airport increased by some 255 per cent, from an original $57.7 million to an estimated final cost of some $127.4 million. From reading the Auditor General's report, it is apparent that the government proceeded without sufficient information on cost estimates, and incomplete, poor accounting and financial control procedures.
Can the minister assure the House that the sloppy and inefficient procedures which he just said were all right and which his department put in place have, in effect, been corrected?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is very much in mind. Since 1976, we have had procedures which guard against some of the problems that arose there. Of course, the statement that the original cost went from a certain figure to another figure may fail to take into account some very legitimate changes which occurred during the course of the construction period and from the planning period onward.
In the case of Calgary airport, we no doubt have an expensive facility. On the other hand, it reflects the very rapid growth of travel in and out of the city of Calgary and that whole area. In my view, the airport is only adequate having regard to the amount of growth we expect in the very near future. So while some of the expansion represents a change from the initial plan, a good deal of this change was desirable. This does not excuse the failure to adopt more stringent procedures as outlined by the Auditor General but, as I

November 27, 1978
Oral Questions
indicated to the hon. member before, since about 1976 those procedures have been changed.


Jack Burnett Murta: My final supplementary is this: in the 1977-78 fiscal year, operating losses at Mirabel international airport totalled some $51.5 million. The Auditor General has also drawn attention to losses and cost overruns affecting other airports in Canada.
Is the Canadian consumer being called upon to pay the bills for sloppy management within the hon. gentleman's department, admittedly over the past few years, in the form of escalating airport taxes and higher landing fees? Is this the price the Canadian taxpayers and travellers are having to pay?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not. Of course, the so-called loss at Mirabel is largely made up of such things as interest carried forward on the investment. In the old days, this used to be disregarded. Once the people of Canada, through parliament, had appropriated an amount of money to build an airport, no account was taken of the fact that it should be viewed as an ongoing cost in terms of the investment and that, therefore, an interest charge be made and depreciation shown.
We now carry these interest charges forward and show depreciation. This, therefore, shows up as a loss with regard to the Mirabel operation. In the long run, I have no doubt that the facility at Mirabel will prove to have been extremely necessary to accommodate the growth of traffic which will occur there. There is, of course, always a difficulty attached to a two-airport situation in moving traffic from Dorval to Mirabel. We have experienced it, and it came at the same time as a downturn in the expected growth in air travel.
Airport use is now surging forward again and in our many efforts, including the effort to avoid overloading Toronto, we are going to need a major facility at Mirabel to handle the load. I have no doubt that, looking back five or ten years from now, it will be seen it was very desirable to build a facility there.


INQUIRY WHETHER ROYAL COMMISSION WILL STUDY DEPARTMENTAL ACTIVITIES
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: My question is directed to the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to remind him that in the long run, as Keynes said, "We are all dead". He is taking a very sanguine attitude toward these losses.
The hon. gentleman has been Minister of Transport since 1975, but he is blaming these misdeeds on previous ministers, such as his seatmate and the gentleman who is in the Senate. For the first time in Canadian history, officials of the department have blamed ministers for what went wrong. I refer to page 539 of the Auditor General's report, where the deputy minister in the minister's department said:
The early commitments made by ministers based on circumstances extraneous to the department were particularly significant in the decisions on the timing,

size and scope of these projects. The strength of these early commitments made it difficult to contain projects at later stages.
In view of these comments of his department, is the minister going to demand a royal commission to clear his name, if it can be cleared by an inquiry, or is he going to resign?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the hon. member has missed the point of the Auditor General's comments vis-a-vis those of the officials in the Department of Transport. I think what the Auditor General is referring to there is the fact that it is not just economic considerations or practical bureaucratic considerations which are taken into account in many of our developments in the area. When we expand facilities at Gander it may not be totally on a cost-benefit basis.
When we proceed with an airport or terminal building at Wabush or at Charlo, to use two examples in the Atlantic region, it is not necessarily done on a cost-benefit basis which is supported by the bureaucracy. When we go to an airport at Charlottetown that is meant to reflect the desires of that province to have a tourist-attracting facility, it is not on an economic basis supported by bureaucrats. I continue to support the right and wisdom of ministers making judgments on the basis of social needs as well as economic needs, and I am glad to stand here and say so on behalf of my predecessors and myself.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this is a wonderful spectacle; the minister wants to spend money for a change. I was not referring to the Auditor General's comments; I was referring to the Department of Transport's comments made with reference to four projects where $200 million were spent that should not have been spent. The four projects were the airports at Calgary and Toronto, the Training Institute at Cornwall, and the Motor Vehicle Test Centre. The minister's officials said that it was "the impact of the political process, our ministers, who caused these transgressions, these overruns."
In view of these statements from his department's officials, will the minister ask for an inquiry, will he request the resignation of these people, or what action will he take? This matter is on the public record. Could the so-called minister advise us what he is going to do about it?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it was my impression that not only did 1 note that it was officials in Transport who made the comments, but I referred to that fact in my answer. It is also my impression that I fully answered the hon. member and told him why it is that sometimes, on a non-economic basis, a minister will make decisions and recommend situations to government on the basis of what is good for a province, region or development not necessarily justified on economics alone. I said that and I said it very fully.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, in a final plea to the minister, we all know that politics have some connection with such questions. Nobody is quarrelling with the site of these projects or whether or not the projects had to go ahead. We are quarrel!-
November 27, 1978

ing with the fact that the wool was pulled over Treasury Board's eyes, that decisions were made too quickly, that there was an unnecessary expenditure of public funds because of the mistakes of ministers, not because of politics intruding. We all know that politics is government.
In view of these circumstances, and the fact that the minister and his predecessors have been blamed for this situation, what action does he propose to take?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. John's West is using reasoning by which he would urge me to follow some bureaucratic advice in favour of closing down the railway in Newfoundland. We are not intending to do so. We are following, instead, political judgment based on an inquiry among people in Newfoundland and consultation with the provincial government and my colleague who quite ably represents Newfoundland.


Mr. Jamieson:: Right.


Otto Emil Lang: We intend to follow a political route, not an economic one.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MOVEMENT OF GRAIN-PURCHASE OF HOPPER CARS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport in his capacity as minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board.
As the minister knows, on Thursday the Wheat Board announced that they wanted to purchase some 500 to 2,000 hopper cars to move prairie grain. In light of the fact that the railways had an obligation to provide the rolling-stock, that the Wheat Board is apparently being blackballed by the railways into purchasing the cars themselves, and that this is a dangerous precedent where the user is actually purchasing his own hopper cars to move his own product, I would ask the minister if he authorized the calling of tenders and, if he did, would he tell this House how he rationalizes and defends his decision against the historical obligation of the railways to provide boxcars or hopper cars to move grain?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member knows that it is not at all unusual for people who ship products to in fact acquire cars and make them available to the railways in connection with the shipment of the product. That would not ordinarily take place in this particular situation, simply because the user is only having to pay a very low rate for moving the product and there is really no room for that kind of flexibility in rate negotiations.
I was aware of the intention of the Canadian Wheat Board to acquire hopper cars, or to go to tender for them. My authorization was not required. I believe that what the Wheat Board is doing is making a judgment that it is better to have
Oral Questions
the extra cars available to avoid charges like demurrage which may lie on its doorstep if at a peak period it cannot move all the grain that it would like to move, or cannot move it as effectively.
The railroads have put forward certain arguments about when they would need additional cars and whether they have enough cars for next year. The Wheat Board, I believe, was not content to take a risk with regard to those arguments, even though some could make a case that with a better turnaround time we would not need the cars until perhaps a year later. Without doubt, we will need them soon and the Wheat Board felt it wise to have those cars and to proceed with a call for bids.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: As we all know, Mr. Speaker, the Wheat Board said we need about 4,000 extra hopper cars and we need to repair about 5,000 boxcars. They also said that because of the fact we do not have adequate cars to move grain, we lost about $350 million in sales last year.
My question to the minister is: why does he not require the railroads to purchase the cars? It is the first time that the Wheat Board has done it. Why does he not require the railways to purchase those cars? Does he not have enough political clout to do so?


Otto Emil Lang: It is hardly a question of political clout. I am not at all sure that I have the legal authority to require the purchase of equipment unless I can make an iron-clad case about equipment being required at a specific time. I have indicated to the railways that I am prepared to look at the power I have under the various pieces of legislation having to do with the Canadian transportation system, and 1 put them on notice that I will not countenance an inadequate supply of equipment to move grain. Their case is that for the immediate period ahead, they have that equipment. I have my own judgment about that.
It is a very tough question to argue in total, that the Wheat Board, instead of waiting for that argument, felt it was wise to have the cars, as they say, partly to guard against things such as demurrage charges which are a normal part of carrying grain and thereby to ensure they can move that grain to the market.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: If the minister feels he cannot persuade the railways to purchase the additional cars, why does his department, as a last resort not convince the government to purchase the hopper cars as it has in the past? I believe the House was told by the minister a few weeks ago that if it were not for the government's restraint program, it might be easier to do that.
Will the minister now undertake to fulfil his obligation to western farmers to try to persuade the government to purchase those cars, so that this cost is not on the backs of the farmers?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, even with restraint, we looked very carefully at the question of purchase of cars and when it would be desirable to purchase additional cars. I have indicated that

November 27, 1978
Oral Questions
I have no doubt-and almost everyone agreed-that additional cars will be needed at some point in the next few years. The question that is at issue at the moment is whether that order needs to be made exactly now. That is a complicated question having regard to the efficiency with which the equipment is used.
In the years between 1974 and 1977, enough improvements were made in the way cars are handled that we achieved 3.3 more turnarounds out of every hopper car and boxcar in the system, and we were able to carry 34 per cent more grain with no increase in equipment. There is under way at present an intensive analysis, on a systems management basis, of whether we can do better with the equipment we have. If we can, we may indeed have enough equipment for the grain which can be hauled and offered to the market next year.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. I congratulate him for his appointment because we shall often have to work together and I hope we understand each other. I ask him this question as minister responsible for urban affairs because that department will remain in existence until March 31, 1979 if the right hon. Prime Minister's release is accurate, and I hope so. In an answer he gave on November 14 to an hon. member, the minister said the following:
I understand that municipal incentive grants and sewage treatment programs will continue until December 31, 1978-
Can the minister tell the House whether the applications of municipalities introduced before December 31 will be considered as being part of the program which will not be terminated.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. However, to take advantage of federal funds the municipalities will have to have their projects approved by provincial authorities. I would also like to thank the hon. member for his good wishes.


INQUIRY WHETHER INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE CONCERNING MUNICIPALITIES' ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister also made the following statement:
-the decision which was taken was that the community services grants program will commence as of January, 1979.
Could the minister tell the House whether documentation is now available so that we can inform the municipalities which

would like to take advantage of this program, and if not, could the minister tell us when such literature will be available?


Hon. Andr6 Ouellet (Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we have already sent literature to this effect to hon. members when we announced the program. Now that we know exactly the costs and the content of this program, I will be happy to table an information paper on this program tomorrow, at the committee where my estimates will be studied.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport, who perhaps has received one of the severest reprimands any accountant can give, in the sense that the Auditor General chose to qualify his report respecting the airport revolving fund under the supervision of the minister.
In connection with the comment of the Auditor General on the Pickering airport site capitalization amounting to something over $54 million, would the minister indicate if the department will accept the advice of the Auditor General and in future cease to capitalize these development costs?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will be reflecting on the correct way to handle the Pickering site as a site in addition to the whole question of it as an item in the accounts. I think hon. members should recognize that it was a somewhat exceptional circumstance, in that we fully intended to move ahead with airport construction, in which case the handling of the amount involved perhaps would have been unexceptional.
As a result of the provincial decision, the province, in effect, selected the site for us: they asked us to build the airport at Pickering. When they disengaged themselves from the exercise and stopped the airport from going ahead, obviously we were left with an investment in land which had been intended for a purpose and which now is not being used for that purpose. This will lead us to reflect on the whole question of how we deal with the land as an item in the accounts.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister of Transport overlooked the fact the Auditor General, in making his stiff comment concerning this transaction, pointed out that it was a federal cabinet decision to defer indefinitely the Pickering airport development.
In view of the answer which the minister just gave, would he indicate when in fact they intend to charge, as an expense, these capitalized items which have built up? It is a major item. Since they are simply for the development of a site which may or may not be developed, surely there should be a charge
November 27, 1978

forthwith against expenditures, rather than fudging the figures and appearing to have an asset when in fact there is none.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me we have an asset: we have the land which was accumulated for the purpose of building Pickering airport. Of course, it was a decision of the Government of Canada actually to stop the construction. The bulldozers were already on site when this decision was taken. Of course, it was taken as a result of the decision by the province of Ontario that it would not build the connecting roads, the services or in any way co-operate with the existence of an airport at that site. So it may have been a cabinet decision but it was made without very much choice, in the circumstances.
We might have had a choice at an earlier date when we were trying to select sites and when, having looked at some sites very carefully, we were asked by Ontario to put aside our site selection and even our choices-one, two, three, four-and go to a completely different site, namely, the Pickering site. The airport was being constructed there very much for provincial reasons-their view of development. It is worth commenting on this extraordinary matter. We went to a site which was the choice of the province, and when we were ready to move with airport construction we were stopped from going ahead by the message from the province that it would not co-operate in an airport at that site.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, presumably the Minister of Transport does not understand the figures respecting the Pickering site. The total capitalization for Pickering is $158 million. The Auditor General did not quibble with the land costs. He stated that the development costs were wrongly capitalized in view of the fact that by decision of the cabinet it was agreed that it would be postponed.
Will the minister assure the House that in future no further development costs at Pickering will be capitalized but will be shown as a current expense, as previous development costs should have been charged?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my first answer, obviously we will take seriously the recommendations of the Auditor General. Simply, I was pointing out to the hon. member, who made it sound as though something very extraordinary had happened, that it might not have looked so extraordinary at all if we had gone ahead with the airport development.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Well, it is extraordinary.


Otto Emil Lang: For that reason, we were treating costs in a certain way. Obviously, we must reach our conclusion about what we are going to do with the land, the whole question of development there and, as a result, where the costs ought to be best shown.
Oral Questions CONSUMER AFFAIRS


MINISTER'S COMMENTS ON BEEF IMPORT QUOTAS
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs: it arises out of last week's beef industry seminar in Regina at which the minister was a luncheon speaker.
In view of the minister's somewhat abrupt and abrasive remarks which clearly indicated his preference for higher beef import quotas and both floor and ceiling prices for live cattle, will he indicate if he was enunciating government policy in this part of his speech to the beef industry seminar?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I reject the suggestion that I was abrupt and harsh with the cattlemen. They invited me to speak to them as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and that is what I did. I do not know what else they would expect me to do but speak as a minister for consumers.


An hon. Member:: They expected you to use common sense.


William Warren Allmand: I did. I suggested that we should get together-the government, cattlemen and consumer groups-to work out, at the beginning of the beef cycle, a system which would provide good incomes to beef producers as well as to provide stable prices for consumers. I thought the beginning of the beef cycle was a good time to do this.
Also, I suggested that perhaps we could increase the quota for low grades of beef which supply the hamburger market. This is important for low income Canadians and it does not compete with what Canadian producers produce, which is high quality beef. I suggested this as a topic for discussion. I hope we can carry through with those discussions. But the increase in quotas is not yet government policy.


AGRICULTURE
Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. McGrath:: This is going to be good.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: The well-researched cattle and beef projections given at the Regina beef seminar pointed out that continued heavy kills of cows and heifers in both Canada and the United States will result in critical shortages throughout the last half of 1979, all of 1980 and through to 1982. That is plainly evident now.
Would the Minister of Agriculture give Canadian beef cattle producers some reassurance that beef import quotas will not be increased and that no floor and ceiling live cattle prices are to be brought in?

November 27, 1978
Oral Questions


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we announced government policy some months ago. At this time we have no intention of changing it. We said that we would leave it in effect at that time, and if the policy which was announced jointly by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and myself did not work, we would bring in an immediate import law. I am sure the hon. member is aware that there has been no change in that policy.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Gaston Clermont (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Does the minister intend to see to it that those who were denied unemployment benefits as a result of amendments made to the act which became effective on January 1, 1976, even though they have applied for the Quebec pension, will benefit from the ruling of the appeals division of the federal court to which the request was submitted by the three retired persons who reached 65 before January 1, 1976?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member is very happy today because he made representations to me in this connection. I have not yet had a chance to read the decision of the tribunal today, but as soon as I have done so I shall have to determine what procedure will have to be followed.


SUGGESTION TRANSPORTATION RESPONSIBILITY REST WITH GRAIN COMPANIES
Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. I take it from his earlier answer that he fully support the Wheat Board proposal to spend up to $100 million of producers' money for grain cars.
As lost sales, deferred sales, demurrage and interest costs are well into the hundreds of millions of dollars so far this calendar year, and more and more the responsibility for faulty programming seems to be with the Canadian Wheat Board, I would ask the minister whether he has considered moving this transportation programming responsibility to the grain companies.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I made it clear, in answer to the hon. member for Yorkton-Mel-ville, that my authorization was not required in relation to this

particular decision by the Wheat Board. I think the hon. member's suggestion that somehow the grain companies could handle this transportation misses some points about the kind of co-ordination that is required in a major movement of a product such as grain. I have not given any serious consideration to the kind of transfer to which he referred.


Frank Fletcher Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, in view of the situation at Vancouver, where we have seen ten or 12 vessels sitting around for the last two months, with no overtime being worked at any of the terminals, could the minister announce any new or innovative measures to assist our grain export program for the coming winter? It seems to be heading into a worse mess than last winter.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear that at any time when we are shooting for the record or the limit of our capability to move grain, we will from time to time run into difficulties. Again this year, during the summer months when we had the capacity to move more grain, ships were not presenting themselves for loading. Now they are bunching in Vancouver, as happens quite chronically at this time of year and has done for many years, even years when we were shipping a rather light volume of grain. I refer to the very low periods of exports when there was a Conservative government in office and the difficulties which can be cited from the press at that time about the pile-up of ships, demurrage charges, and so on. That was, as I say, Mr. Speaker, when we were exporting 300 million and 400 million bushels of grain instead of the near-record volumes of 820 million and 850 million bushels we are exporting in these years.


STATUS OF WOMEN
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the status of women and it concerns the Advisory Council on the Status of Women which reports to the minister.
As the minister and other members are aware, on a regular basis the advisory council has published an evaluation of the advancement of women in the public service. This year's report has been considerably delayed, and it now appears that the report itself has been sent to the Public Service Commission, or a number of copies, for comment and possible alteration or censorship. Was the minister consulted about this unusual procedure, has he asked for a copy of the report, and has he approved this?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I would, first of all, say I regret that the hon. member uses the provisions of section 43 to put on the record allegations of the nature he has made at a time when we are not in a position to immediately answer them.
November 27, 1978

As far as the report is concerned, it is a report which is made on a regular basis by the Advisory Council on the Status of Women. That is an independent body for whom I answer in parliament. That body is completely independent and it does its studies in the way it wants, in respect of the subjects it wants and at a time it wants; and it releases its reports when it wants.
If at this particular time this body has decided to check with the Public Service Commission on the accuracy of statistics it used during its study, I would remind the hon. member that the Public Service Commission is also an independent body and that that is the right of the council. I find nothing wrong with that. On the contrary, I find it very commendable, and I would hope that the opposition would do a little bit of the same once in a while, rather than casting aspersions on devoted public servants and independent bodies which cannot defend themselves in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, since the minister is obviously not aware of this procedure, or at least appears to be unaware of it, could he indicate why this procedure was adopted this year and in no previous years? In view of the possible conflict of interest in respect of having a full, frank and objective report, will the minister take appropriate action?
While he is answering that, and since he is concerned about a full and objective report of information-over half a year ago he promised this House the reports and plans of action of the various departments in respect of the equal opportunities programs-would he indicate why we have been so unsuccessful in having any of this material published? Is deliberate action being taken by the government to suppress this information?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member again makes a statement to the effect that there was no such consultation in previous years. My question to him is: how does he know? The research section of the advisory council does its own work. They do not consult me about their work. I am not aware of what exactly took place in these specific instances, and I intend that it remains so. If you want to ensure that we have objective and reliable reports, I find it quite proper and quite normal for bodies of that nature to check the facts, rather than to do as the hon. member has done too often on this subject of the status of women, putting on the record of this House statements which are not correct and are not accurate.
As to the general question about the equal opportunities program, I would remind the hon. member that departments are required to file with Treasury Board their plans of action. I have stated that those plans of action, once they have been filed with Treasury Board, are available for examination. I do not know exactly what the situation is today, but if the hon. member wishes to have access to some of those documents, he need only ask Treasury Board and he can see them for himself. I have stated repeatedly that those documents are available.
Oral Questions HOUSING


INCREASE IN PRICE OF LUMBER-EFFECT ON HOUSING STARTS NEXT YEAR
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I would direct my question to the minister responsible for housing. In view of the fact that all indications are that the number of housing starts next year will decline quite substantially because of the increased cost of building houses, the increased cost of land and the increased cost of mortgages, would the minister tell the House whether he and his officials have looked into the increase in the last year of between 45 per cent and 65 per cent in the cost of lumber used in housing, at a time when the forest products industry has had an increase in their profits of well over 100 per cent?
If his officials have looked at this situation, can the minister indicate what effect this increase in the price of lumber will have on housing starts next year?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, this government has a projected five-year plan of close to one million new starts in Canada in order to meet the needs of Canadians in terms of housing. This projected plan of five years is well on target. In fact, we believe that within the five years we will meet the objective we have established. We do not fear that there will be a substantial reduction in starts this year or next year that would curtail that objective of one million new starts in Canada.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, in the absence of the Minister of Finance.
Will the minister have his department, or the Anti-Inflation Board, look at this increase in the price of lumber of between 45 per cent and 65 per cent in the last year, at a time when the major corporations in this industry showed an increase in profits of 119 per cent in one year, and at a time when the wages of workers in the industry were restricted by the AIB guidelines to 6 per cent? Will the minister have his department look at this situation and make a statement at some time in the House explaining this deplorable situation?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, my department does not have responsibility for that matter or the AIB. The problem is an important one and I will refer it to the appropriate agencies, AIB and CSIP, which is the new agency of the Economic Council to monitor prices.

November 27, 1978
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Arthur Portelance (Gamelin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. But first, I think it would be in order to congratulate him as well as his officials, the members of the Canadian Armed Forces and all the employees of the Department of Employment and Immigration for their magnificent performance over the weekend with regard to the transportation of the Vietnamese refugees who have new reached Canada. I should now like to ask the minister, knowing that Quebec will accept about 200 of those refugees and that it seems to be co-operating fully, what other areas of Canada will welcome the other refugees?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I welcome, as obviously the House does, the opportunity to pass on to all concerned in this airlift and the previous activities involved the congratulations of members for a very first-class humanitarian job. I will see to it that the message from the House is conveyed to the officials concerned.
I do not know precisely which provinces are involved. There are at least six, and perhaps seven, but I will try to get more specific information. The last figures I saw show that approximately one-third would remain in the province of Quebec and the balance distributed across the country; but I shall get more specific information.


PENITENTIARIES
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Solicitor General. Could the minister assure the House that a complete investigation is being carried out into the tragic deaths of custodial officer Francis Eustace, and food services officer Paul Maurice at the Collins Bay penitentiary over the weekend?
Could he further assure the House that, while no monetary compensation can adequately compensate for this tragic loss of life, nevertheless arrangements will be made so that the bereaved families will not be in financial distress?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am pleased that the hon. lady chose to present a motion under Standing Order 43 which permitted all members of the House to offer our condolences to the two families.

I would say, as well, to the hon. lady that she can rest assured there will be a complete investigation of the circumstances. I want to reassure her, as well as the staff of the Canadian Penitentiary Service, that in this instance we are considering an isolated incident in terms of security and there does not seem to be, at first-hand, any lapse in internal security. The circumstances would indicate, however, that the inmate concerned may have been under the influence of an intoxicant and, therefore, there is need for a complete investigation.
In terms of compensation for members of families, I might indicate there has been a great deal of interest shown both by the House and myself in finding adequate compensation so that members who are so affected are not left in a situation where they are at a loss financially as a result of unfortunate and tragic events.


IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Solicitor General. Could the minister give the House a brief account of the circumstances leading up to this tragedy? Also, is he aware that the report of the subcommittee on penitentiaries, which was adopted unanimously by members of all parties on that subcommittee, came to his predecessor in office, and thus to him, as a package remedy for many of the incidents such as this one we are dealing with?
Can he tell the House whether the government intends to implement that report as a package? I realize that some recommendations have been implemented. When is the package going to be implemented, so that this kind of thing might be avoided in future?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before the minister attempts to answer, I would say that I consider the question in the first part, an account of the circumstances, to be inappropriate in the question period because of the length of reply that would be required. The part about the committee report seems to be quite in order.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the second part of the hon. gentleman's question, I might indicate that on Thursday of this week I will be appearing before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, at which time I will be tabling a further progress report on the implementation of the recommendation of the subcommittee.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would invite the hon. member and all other members who are interested in this matter to attend the meeting and ask all questions they consider relevant.
November 27, 1978


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of National Defence with respect to the Space Research Corporation, a Canadian company which, as the minister knows, has been assisted to the tune of millions of dollars by the Canadian taxpayers and whose activities have been the subject of an investigatory TV program and recent action by the government of Barbados as well as that of Antigua?
I ask the minister if he can be absolutely satisfied that the armaments manufactured by Space Research Corporation have remained in the countries to which Canada issued end-user certificates, and whether it is possible that any of these armaments could have been transshipped to other countries?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member knows that is not in my area of responsibility. I understand an investigation is being made. 1 do not know if the appropriate minister has an answer to that question at this time. I cannot answer the question.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. 1 gather that the Solicitor General is not in his place at the moment. I should like to remind the minister that he knows inquiries have been made of him in the past. 1 would ask him if he would give the House his assurance that he will investigate this matter, talk to the RCMP officers involved in the investigation, or have the Solicitor General do so and find out once and for all whether armaments that are being shipped from this country to countries where Canada has offered or given an end-user certificate are being warehoused and transshipped elsewhere? I think he owes the House this kind of explanation.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, if I were the minister responsible, I would owe the House this sort of response; but I am not the minister responsible. I am sure the minister responsible will answer as he responded in the House the other day without any conclusive information, as I understand. As the Solicitor General is now in the House, the hon. member may wish to redirect the question to him. If he would start from scratch, the Solicitor General could hear it.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General, but it is on another matter. I should like to ask the minister if there has been any change in the policy and purpose of the Penitentiary Service; that is, not only to protect the public and impose punishment but also to provide help for rehabilitation.
Oral Questions
1 ask that question in light of the fact that in part of this restraint program consideration is being given to reducing by 50 per cent the chaplaincy service in the major institutions. Could the minister reassure the House that the purpose of the Penitentiary Service is still threefold, and that requests by somebody to reduce the chaplaincy service in many institutions, removing either the Roman Catholic or the Protestant chaplain-who by historic tradition have been in most of them-will not be proceeded with, in view of the fact that so many estimates for publishment have been increased in the Penitentiary Service?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his representation. I fully agree with him. He knows, as hon. members of the House know, that there is, as a result of restraints, a cutback in terms of total staff and in some areas, some of the chaplaincy has been affected, but not as a result of any concentration in terms of the chaplains themselves.
We have made every attempt to encourage representatives of the chaplaincy to communicate and consult with us in order to make sure there is a proper chaplaincy effort within the Penitentiary Service. I assure the hon. gentleman that it is an activity I am paying close attention to, for the reasons he has outlined.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. 1 would have given the minister notice, but this matter came to my attention over the weekend. As I left my church, someone very active in the chaplaincy service approached me. I must say I was rather startled with the information I received.
I understand that the minister or the commissioner of the Penitentiary Service is meeting with the Interfaith Committee on Wednesday or Thursday. Contrary to part of the answer of the minister, it is my information that over 50 per cent of the chaplains and/or the positions in the major institutions are being eliminated-either not being filled, or those that are filled are going to be cut back. This will distort the religious service that has been given to the inmates, and in the province of Quebec it will even distort the service given by Francophone and Anglophone chaplains to the inmate population. In that sense, it will have a very adverse effect on this rehabilitation program.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Interfaith Committee will be comforted in the sense that they will see that the information, or the scuttlebutt we have been hearing is not accurate. Regarding the Protestant chaplains in the province of Quebec, the situation is that there are only about 170 Protestant inmates in Quebec so, in effect, we have a surplus of Protestant chaplains in that province. Therefore, there may be a reduction that approaches the figure which the hon. member describes. I am sure he understands the motivation for the reduction in this instance.

November 27, 1978
Order Paper Questions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   Wm. Andres@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Multiculturalism: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 288, 478 and 483. 1 ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-ELECTRONIC DEVICES
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the government and specifically, the Department of External Affairs, aware of electronic listening devices or any other form of surveillance device found in the Embassy of Poland in Ottawa?
2.	Did the government receive any representations on the matter from Polish authorities and, if so, from whom and on what date?
3.	Is the government aware as to who installed the devices and, if so, what is the identity of the person or persons?
4.	Has the government or anyone acting on its behalf, placed listening devices in a foreign Embassy or Consulate in Canada?
5.	Does the government possess evidence that such devices were placed by other foreign powers in embassies and, if so, what is their identity along with dates, any incidents and the embassies involved?


Mr. Louis Duclos (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1, 3, 4 and 5. The Canadian government has traditionally refused to comment on such questions, on grounds of national security.
2. No.


CBC-EMPLOYEES
Mr. Roy (Laval): 1.	Does CBC have a policy regarding employees who are prosecuted following verbal or written comments and, if so, what is it?
2.	During the past ten years, have any employees been prosecuted and, if so (a) how many (b) what amount did CBC spend for their defence, if any?
3.	For the same years, were any employees found guilty and, if so (a) how many (b) what was the amount of the settlement, including out of court settlements?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. The CBC has no policy in this regard; however, individual cases are dealt with upon their merits and in accordance with the best interests of the corporation.
2. (a) Twenty.
(b) In all cases the employees were named as co-defendants of the CBC and the same counsel was retained to defend both the employees and the corporation. Since, in such cases, legal expenses are combined, it is impossible to determine how much the corporation has spent exclusively on employees' defence. However, in the context of one of these cases, that is still before the courts, one employee was named in a motion
[Mr. Blais.)
for contempt and the corporation was not named. The amount spent by the CBC in the defence of that employee in the motion for contempt is determinable and it was $6,207.93.
3. In matters finally determined, no employees were held responsible or found guilty. As for out of court settlements, in one case, while no finding was made by a court, the CBC settled out of court on behalf of itself and the employee involved for $1,000 damages and $450 costs. In respect of the motion noted in answer to question 2(b) the employee was found guilty of contempt and the corporation covered $3,368.09 in satisfaction of court costs.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION-LAWYERS IN VICTORIA
Mr. McKinnon: What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Constituency of Victoria who performed services for the Farm Credit Corporation during 1977 and, in each case, what was the total amount paid?


Eugene Whelan: Farm Credit Corporation advises:
Cecil Branson,
Sullivan, Smith & Bigelow,
505-645 Fort Street,
Victoria, B.C. V8W 1G2.
Fees paid to lawyers used in the constituency of Victoria, British Columbia by Farm Credit Corporation are paid as follows:
(i)	by the borrowers upon their direction out of the proceeds of the mortgage loans in which case Farm Credit Corporation does not maintain records of amounts so paid;
(ii)	by Farm Credit Corporation on mortgage proceedings-Nil.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVILEGE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege of which I gave you notice several days ago.
You will recall, sir, that my question of privilege arose from a certain declaration that I was asked to sign on November 23 should I wish to gain access to a lock-up dealing with the 100th Annual Report of the Auditor General to this House. In my notice to you, Mr. Speaker, 1 pointed out that my privilege as a member of parliament and my ability to function as such
November 27, 1978

had been impeded by this unnecessary imputation that we, as members of the House, may not be taken as people of our word.
I will outline the four offensive statements that I was to agree to if I wished to go into the lock-up. The document was to be dated November 23. First, it was to acknowledge receipt of a copy of the report of the Auditor General to the House of Commons for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1978. I took no objection to that.
The four parts of the declaration to which 1 did take objection are as follows: First
I undertake not to remove them-
Meaning the actual report of the Auditor General and the Conspectus which was also to be furnished. It continues:
-from Room 308 West Block before the report is tabled in the House of Commons.
I agree not to leave this room without escort before 2 p.m. this date.
I understand that interviews on the publications mentioned above are not to be given until the report has been tabled in the House of Commons, and I agree not to divulge the content of these publications until after tabling.
The basis of my privilege would turn on two related but, I would suggest, separate points. First, I believe there should be an adjudication as to whether once you give the existence of a lock-up, and there has been no dispute about that, the lock-up was agreed to by the public accounts committee of this chamber, any member should feel free to attend if he wished. The only qualification stated by the chairman of the public accounts committee with respect to the lock-up was that the usual requirements of lock-ups would somehow be acknowledged and followed.
As I understand it, the actual drafting of the declaration that 1 was requested to sign was done by the office of the Auditor General. In short, the public accounts committee said that there would be a lock-up and the usual requirements would apply.
Having met that declaration I feel we must consider, given the existence of the lock-up to which I have referred, can a member be forced to sign a declaration saying he will divulge nothing? Can a member's freedom of movement be restricted as one of the conditions of that lock-up? What I am about to say, Mr. Speaker, turns very heavily on what is meant by that term "hon. members of this House". What is meant when we swear the oath before we take our seats in this House? I would say, when one relates the tradition of this House to the very heavy precedent that we are to be treated as men of honour, that our word is to be accepted, there is a serious challenge to that premise in the whole context of the draft declaration that members were confronted with on November 23.
In support of what I am saying I would point out that we have standing committees of this House that not infrequently hold in-camera sessions to prepare their reports for further tabling. This type of thing is dealt with from time to time in Hansard. At no time, to the best of my knowledge, has it ever been suggested that a member of this House who chooses to attend an in-camera meeting of one of our standing committees with a view to preparing any report, whether or not it is to
Privilege-Mr. Stevens
be tabled in this House, has been required to sign a declaration such as the one I was confronted with on November 23, to give any indication that he would not discuss the report. As I understand it, that is taken for granted. It is understood. If a member is invited and does attend any type of secret session or one that is generally regarded to be off the record, as a man of his word, he will not breach that trust.
You will recall, sir, that on May 19 at page 146 of Hansard there was a question of someone apparently speaking out of turn concerning something that had transpired in an in-camera session of a then committee of this House. At that time it was generally felt that the proper course to follow, if someone breaches the traditional rules of this House, was that an hon. member should then get up on a question of privilege and ask that that individual member be dealt with. I would refer you, sir, to Beauchesne, citation 46, where the question of secret sessions of the Canadian House of Commons and the British House of Commons is explored. The keeping of the secrets that presumably might be revealed in those secret sessions is held as a member's duty.
There is no suggestion that any member has to sign some separate type of declaration or take any oath that he will not reveal whatever he learns in such a session. Again, I would say that the whole requirement that a member of parliament remain in a specific place until a specific time is obviously a restriction of his freedom of movement and his ability to serve as a member of parliament generally. Should we not accept that members who have due regard for secrecy whether locked into a room or not, since they are not locked up, for example, until a committee reports, to which I have just referred-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. While the hon. member is on that subject, in the circumstances to which he is referring, would he be proposing that, given this lock-up, which is an arrangement that I might have to look at in terms of the rights and duties of members, when he or any other hon. member had appeared and entered the room and secured copies of documents, that they ought equally to be free to leave the room with copies in their possession, also on the understanding that they would have to be trusted not to break secrecy?
To keep them in the room once they have entered, even though voluntarily and without signing any declaration, even to prevent them from leaving the room with the document in hand, would somehow be equally an interference with the freedom of the hon. member in the circumstance. I would like the hon. member to deal with that.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As I understand the thrust of your general comment, I feel that in truth would be another breach of our privilege in this House. The reason 1 am raising this is not so much to point the finger at any particular group, certainly not at the Auditor General. It is simply to get a new focus on something that I feel has not really been properly dealt with in this House. It is the question of how do we treat relatively confidential matters such as the tabling of the

November 27, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Stevens
Auditor General's report, and in my case much more important, dealing with budgetary matters.
How do we treat these prior to their publication in a way that we can accept members of parliament as being qualified people who will deal on a confidential basis, if necessary, with the documents concerned and at the same time ensure there will be a meaningful discussion in this House with regard to whatever the document is, be it the Auditor General's report or a budgetary presentation in due course?
Perhaps this is the worst example I have run into to date of where ad hockery in dealing with the so-called lock-ups has led to an affront virtually of every member in this House in the sense of requiring a member to sign a declaration that I think most members would find most unusual and, I would hope in all cases, totally unnecessary, to ensure that whatever secrecy was to be preserved with respect to the publication of the Auditor General's report, would in fact be preserved.
I say this because I think we must draw a distinction between the nature of the Auditor General's report and, say, the more precarious type of report or statements that you have in a budgetary statement. After all, an Auditor General's report, while it may be embarrassing to the government and others in the country, is really after the event. It is simply the report of an Auditor General as to what he has found with respect to his examination of the accounts of government.
In a budgetary sense, where a minister of finance, inadvertently or otherwise, might make a disclosure, that would give somebody an opportunity to take advantage and make a windfall profit or in some way gain access to knowledge that he otherwise should not have. Whatever lock-up requirements are required for an Auditor General's report, they should be less severe than those generally necessary for a budget lock-up.
In the case of the November 23 situation, the actual requirements that were asked of me were the most severe I have ever encountered with regard to any lock-up since I have come to Ottawa. Certainly the budgetary lock-ups are handled on a more casual basis. We are treated as members of parliament in those lock-ups, allowed a certain freedom to leave, for example, before the minister rises in his place to deliver the budget speech. We are allowed to have some discussion with our leader concerning the budget, and that type of thing. That is totally within the context of operating properly as a member of parliament.
I feel there was a question of privilege on November 23 with regard to when I requested admission to the lock-up room to deal with the Auditor General's report. I feel there is a question of privilege as I was asked to sign a declaration with the four offensive parts in it that I have read. I say that, in order to underline the fact that I do not think the Auditor General's report is all that secret. 1 would point out that if you review the Auditor General's report you will find two letters at the beginning of the report, one from the then president of the treasury board, now the President of the Board of Economic Ministers (Mr. Andras), to the Auditor General, and the other from the Auditor General to the then president of the treasury board.

The interesting thing about these letters is that they point out that the contents of the Auditor General's report had been known, certainly to the then president of the treasury board and his staff. The whole point of the letters was that the President of the Treasury Board could reply to the Auditor General to what extent he felt the comments were fair and to what extent he felt he could improve or had already put in place certain mechanisms to relieve some of the problems to which the Auditor General had referred.
We have here a situation where a report is already being dealt with by members of parliament, certainly by one or more cabinet ministers and their staff. However, when it comes to the question of when can we in the opposition have access to and review the report, these harsh lock-up requirements are in effect forced upon us, or we do not see the report.
I would point out that in the letter from the then president of the treasury board to the Auditor General dated October 13, well ahead of the actual tabling of the report in this House, the then president of the treasury board stated:
-my formal reponse to the information which you have imparted to my senior officials and myself concerning your forthcoming audit findings and observations.
He goes on to make some comments. He stated he felt there had been major initiatives taken by both the Treasury Board secretariat and the new office of the Comptroller General with regard to comments made in the Auditor General's forthcoming report. In reply to that letter, the Auditor General stated:
Your letter of October 13 is a constructive and welcome response to the government-wide observations and recommendations that my current annual Report brings to the attention of Parliament.
He goes on to make certain other comments, and concludes by saying:
In this connection, your letter of October 13 setting out the government's position and plans with regard to the more significant recommendations will be particularly helpful. I appreciate very much your precedent-setting action in making it available to me for inclusion in the Centennial Annual Report of the Auditor General to the House of Commons.
I underline that not only is the nature of an Auditor General's report not one where there has to be a great degree of secrecy, but in this case the contents of the Auditor General's report were known to members of the government, particularly the then president of the treasury board, at least a month in advance. There were exchanges of letters. The then president of the treasury board even indicated that he felt various mechanisms had been put in place to minimize some of the difficulties which the Auditor General was detailing.
I find it most remarkable, when it comes to the day that the report is to be tabled, that not only are we given little forewarning as to what is in the report, but if we wish to go into the so-called lock-up we are required to sign the declaration to which I have referred. After that it falls on us on that day to be the critics of the government. We have to question the government with regard to various points raised in the Auditor General's report as to whether they are true or as to what steps have been taken concerning the various points raised by the Auditor General. There seems to be a very unfair advantage given to those on the government side, compared to
November 27, 1978

those on the opposition side in a very practical day to day dealing sense with regard to the Auditor General's report.
Since I began my activities in the House I have sensed that there is a wish on all sides that there be pre-budget reviews and pre-Auditor General report reviews. However, there is great uncertainty as to what should be the proper form. To what extent should people actually be locked up? To what extent should they be allowed to leave prior to a certain hour? To what extent should they be allowed to take documents with them?
If Your Honour accepts my suggestion to have this referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, I hope there will be some in depth study, not just on the immediate problem that I say confronted me on November 23 with regard to this declaration, but that the committee widen the reference and look at what would be suitable guidelines for all members of parliament to live by with regard to in-camera or lock-up sessions, with special reference to the budgetary side and the Auditor General's type of reporting.
This has come up previously. In 1976 the then minister of finance, Mr. Macdonald, stated on March 31, for example:
-I think it would be very useful if the House in general could give some consideration to the broader question as to whether the procedures that have been followed historically in this parliament, in Westminster with regard to budgets might be reviewed with the object referred to by the hon. member-
That is, myself.
-of having a more open scrutiny of the government's economic and fiscal planning, and either in the context of that discussion or perhaps with a special reference to the standing committee it would be of value if we could review the budget procedures and decide whether the time has not come now to make such changes in Canada.
I could go on, sir, and read the comments made by the minister of finance. That comment was made on March 31 and reported on page 12,319 of Hansard. He said, in general, that there must be a better way to have pre-budget reviews. Again, in his budget of May 25 that year, he specifically recommended a review be made and suggested that he and the House leader come up with a suitable plan.
In the budget debate which followed on June 8, a former minister of finance, the then hon. member for Eglinton, Mr. Sharp, dealt at length with the problems I am touching on here. His comments may be found at page 14,290 of Hansard for June 8. He referred to what was going on as an affront. He said:
It is an affront, and I trust that come next budget there will be a demand from all sides of the House that this farce will not be permitted to recur.
The farce he was referring to was the Minister of Finance rising in his place to speak at the same time that the press outside were on radio and TV running the actual budget speech as if it had been delivered. I believe there is a growing uneasiness within the House concerning such things as the so-called lock-up-the pre-budget submission, the pre-budget discussions-and now, with the tabling of the Auditor-General's report, the whole question of a lock-up prior to that report being tabled in the House.
Privilege-Mr. Stevens
I think everybody meant well, but in my view a reference to the privileges committee would be in order to try to get the question aired. If you find I do have a question of privilege, sir, I would propose that there be a reference to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections based on the requirements set out in the declaration drafted by the Auditor General, dated November 23, 1978, to determine whether my privilege as an MP and all privileges of MPs in this House were in fact infringed by the proposed declaration.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I quite agree with the hon. member that this is an important matter to discuss. He has in effect raised two distinct issues in the same context of privilege. One is the question of the document which it was suggested ought to have been signed vis-a-vis the Auditor General's report. Then he has used that incident to raise the larger question of lock-ups and general restraint on members where documents or actions in the House are being anticipated or are likely to occur within a matter of a few hours.
On the first question which prompted his intervention at this time, it appears to me that the matter is one for the Auditor General himself. It is my information that this was a decision of the Auditor General and that the wording concerned was drafted by him. I can assure the House that neither the government nor, to my knowledge, any member on this side, was involved in that particular exercise in any way. The Auditor General is, after all, a servant of parliament, and therefore in this context his relationship is directly with the public accounts committee. I would have thought the arrangement in that case would have been worked out between all the members of the committee and the Auditor General.
I emphasize again that this is a special case and I am not at all certain, though I have no intention of intruding on your jurisdiction, that it is a matter for parliament to decide, or a matter for the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. That would be something for Your Honour to judge.
On the broader question, I think the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) has brought up something that merits discussion. But once again I am not certain that we would accomplish everything that I suspect most members of the House desire by going through the instrument of the committee on privileges and elections. Many of these matters are not specifically or directly involved with the parliamentary process. I am thinking, for example, of royal commission reports of various kinds. There is a whole range of documents of one type or another which, from time to time, are authored by people who are not officers of parliament or, indeed, who may not be officials of the government, and I am not certain, therefore, that a committee of this House could properly set down rules of procedure in that regard.
I can recall, over the many years I have spent here, a number of occasions when various commissions and groups which have been assigned tasks by certain departments, or by the government as a whole, have created considerable furore through the premature leak, as it is called, of the contents of their reports to elements of the media or to particular mem-

November 27, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Stevens
bers of the House of Commons. By the way, the comments I am making now are completely non-partisan. They are designed simply to illustrate the nature of the problem.
1 have myself been involved in the past with various reports on broadcasting when members of the opposition found themselves incensed at each other because some had been more favoured than others by a particular group which was reporting. Similarly, in the case of royal commission reports which, I suggest, are somewhat analogous to the Auditor General's report in the sense that there is no secrecy provision, some of them, resulted in members on the government side being upset because the opposition was in possession of more information than they had themselves.
As a result of this development there has evolved over the years the concept of a lock-up so that in the first instance the media could be assured-and this was the beginning of it on non-secret matters-that deadlines or release times would be respected, if the hon. member, and any other, wish to look up the antecedents of this they will find I am correct. It was always difficult to determine how all the media could be treated fairly.
The second development, one which has come about in comparatively recent times-as I suspect the distinguished member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) would agree-was a genuine move on the part of government to ensure that the opposition had the opportunity of advance knowledge so that there could hopefully be some form of informed comment. This was unheard of, I think it would probably be generally agreed, until recent times. In other words, the government prevented the kind of problem which is now occurring simply by saying "You will hear about it when it comes up in the House." So the move to greater consultation, toward getting everybody in a position where the debate can be substantive and worth-while, has resulted in the kind of problems before us today.
But I do want to emphasize once again that as distinct from the budget or other matters where fiscal or monetary policy is involved and with regard to which, as the hon. member has said, special considerations apply, most of these other things have to do with ensuring that everybody-the media, and subsequently members of parliament-gets off on the same footing.
I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, as to whether or not the consideration of this matter in the context of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections or some other committee of parliament, is the appropriate forum. I am quite certain that my colleague, the government House Leader, would have no objection to having some of the matters raised there, but I suspect that it would be useful if there were perhaps a consultation between House leaders in the first instance so that all of these issues would be embraced in the same consideration, rather than those which are exclusively under the purview of parliament, and therefore of you, sir, as the distinguished head of parliament.

Since television has come into the House it has given still another dimension to this particular problem. It was evident in the budget debate of a few nights ago when, as I understand it, in the absence of any signed commitment, but of what may be described as a gentleman's agreement, there was an understanding that comment would not precede the actual points in the speech which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) was making. Therefore, there were certain understood time constraints. For one reason or another these were not, from my personal observation, adhered to. I do not say that this was done deliberately. To see what was occurring, I chose to watch the budget debate on television rather than from my seat in the House.
The hon. member for York-Simcoe, the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), and many members of the media, who probably triggered the response of opposition critic, were in their comments ahead of what was being said here in the House. I would suspect that almost any one of us is sufficiently egotistical not to want to be upstaged in this fashion, even if perhaps there is no particular financial concern with regard to the stock market or anything of that sort.
I wanted to put my views on the record, Mr. Speaker. I think that the movement toward more consultation and providing more information for the opposition and other spokesmen, is a move in the right direction. I would hope that any decisions which are made would not be designed to constrain that in any way.
On the specific point I do want to make it clear, lest there is any shadow of a doubt about it-and I do not think that the hon. member was seeking to do so-that this, 1 believe, was a rule of the Auditor General himself and was not something which the House leader or indeed the Secretary of the Treasury Board, who might normally be expected to do so, had imposed upon him. I think that this was the Auditor General's own rule and, therefore, I do not believe that there is any cause for a grievance in so far as any action by the government itself is concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: There are several members who may want to contribute to this discussion, but I would like to leave it for a time because it seems to me that the hon. member has raised a point which might have a serious procedural difficulty in that since he, or any other member, does not have to go to the lock-up at all, it is difficult to tie it to a question of privilege, thereby establishing that somehow the member is prevented from doing something by the condition laid down surrounding a particular event when, in fact, the hon. member obviously does not have to go there at all if he does not want to do so.
I have not had a chance to think that through, but in terms of founding a question of privilege on the basis of the member being prevented from carrying out his duties in the House, it seems to me that that has always been tied to the duties, or aspects of parliamentary duties, which are absolutely essential to any member, and has to amount to the prevention of a member in his essential obligations-not in those obligations which may be, although closely tied, not tied or related in some way to his essential obligations. I am not making a final
November 27, 1978

determination, but there is a procedural difficulty there which we face.
The reason 1 want to leave it without making a determination at this time is because there is a great deal of importance in what the hon. member has raised. As the minister has just pointed out, the matter of lock-ups is a rather recent development, and 1 think everyone has agreed that they have been established with the best of motivation. In fact the hon. member said quite specifically that this lock-up is no exception, that it is obviously for the best interests of members who wish to participate so that their performance in the House will be better, either in their own capacity or on behalf of their party. It is a recent development, and therefore this House has not addressed itself to the conditions which either ought to surround this kind of lock-up or not surround it, depending on the point of view taken.
It may be that with the expressions of interest, cited by the hon. member for York-Simcoe, of former finance ministers of very recent duration-both of whom have put their views on the record in a specific way-that they favour, as I am sure all hon. members do, greater consultation within the limits of possibilities on these matters, but no one has ever addressed himself to a series of conditions that ought to surround or not surround these kinds of lock-ups.
If the ministers' sentiments are broadly held on that side of the House, it may be that the consensus exists whereby some reference to a committee could be agreed upon in order that this matter be examined and reported back to the House with recommendations, without the necessity of establishing a question of privilege within the narrow strictures of privilege. Therefore I would like to leave it to see whether or not it can be explored over the next short while, as to whether or not some reference can be created or some vehicle found through which this matter can be explored for the benefit of the House in an attempt to set things down.
The hon. member has certainly raised a valid point as to conditions that ought to surround this kind of lock-up in so far as members are concerned. If it turns out that some agreed reference can be made, then so much the better. If some agreed reference cannot be made, then we will return to the question of privilege as raised by the hon. member, and I will then give all hon. members who are interested in the subject an opportunity to be heard at that time.


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I simply rise on this particular point to accept your suggestion and to inform the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) that we are receptive to a proposal by the government House leader as soon as it is convenient. We leave the matter in abeyance until that time.
Health Resources Fund Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: that Bill C-2, to amend the Health Resources Fund Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be as brief as possible this afternoon so that the House will not a have to suffer too long my raucous voice. I therefore want to underline the highlights of the proposed termination two years before expected.
We all recall that the Health Resources Fund Act was given royal assent on July 11, 1966, a little over 12 years ago. It was our colleague, the hon. leader of the government, who held the health portfolio and that piece of legislation was one of the high points of his career. It was voted to make up, in a sense, for certain things as regards the teaching of medicine and related professions, laboratory equipment and research facilities in Canadian universities and hospitals, although the federal government does pay 50 per cent of all health costs in Canada through the ten provincial governments.

This fund, hon. members will recall, was passed some 12 years ago under the Health Resources Fund Act and was allocated $500 million to be divided into three parts-$300 million was allocated to the provinces on a per capita basis, $25 million was allocated to the Atlantic provinces for joint projects, and the balance, $175 million, was put aside to be allocated by the governor in council for particular projects.
What is important to know is that, basically, the fund did the job it was supposed to do. Of the $500 million appropriated under the act, 83.4 per cent has been spent or is committed and will be reimbursed on presentation of invoices, and that 83.4 per cent amounts to $416,700,000.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to review rapidly the way in which that fund was spent. Approximately one-fifth of the fund went to medical schools and multi-purpose buildings in the health science complexes; another one-fifth went to university hospitals; some money went to affiliated hospitals; a smaller sum, namely, $23 million, went to dental schools; and $76 million went to nursing schools, auxiliary schools and other health manpower training centres. Of the money committed to this date, $60.8 million remain to be paid in the next three or four years.
I should like to explain to members of the House that all the submissions which have been approved, and which therefore represent a contract between the Government of Canada and the provincial governments, will be fully honoured, despite the

November 27, 1978
Health Resources Fund Act
reduction due to the fiscal constraints which we think are essential to put the Canadian economy back to full productivity. We will honour all these commitments. For instance, in this particular fiscal year I anticipate some $3 million worth of claims which will be paid on presentation of invoices and auditing according to the usual rules of the game.
I have here a list giving the geographical distribution of the various projects which were approved. I should like to ask the permission of the House to table it as an appendix to Hansard because it might be unpleasant for members of the House to have to listen to the list being read. The list represents a fair distribution of the 238 projects throughout the provinces and territories of our country which benefited from the fund.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if it would not be better to have the list appended to today's Hansard, because tabling it would not make it available to very many people.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I will never learn the jargon of the House, but that is what I meant. Perhaps the House could indicate to me how I am supposed to proceed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is there unanimous agreement to allowing the minister to append the list to today's Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For list referred to above see Appendix "A".]


Monique Bégin: For instance, as concerns my own province, 57 projects representing more than $100 million have been approved. Quebeckers will certainly recall the opening of the new Cite de la Sante complex in Laval where the federal minister representing Canadian taxpayers was of course not able to speak, but whose presence was I believe noticed by everyone. If we emphasize the fact that we participate in such important hospital initiatives as the very beautiful Cite de la Sante in Laval, I believe it is quite clear that Quebec, since this is the example I have chosen, is one of the provinces which is a net beneficiary of the health resources fund.
Quebec Premier Levesque, who made the official speech for this inauguration early last fall, laughed when he saw that 1 was not speaking and he said: "Of course, federal representatives think that they have contributed to the Cite de la Sante in Laval, but all that they have done is to give us back the money from our taxes."
I would have liked very much to take a few minutes to put the record straight because a national fund, like the health resources fund, not only gives back to the people of a given province the money that they have paid in taxes to the federal government, but in all the cases where a province is poorer or disadvantaged, it gives, through redistribution, much more money than the taxpayers of this province had paid originally.

On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, one of the major objectives of the health resources fund is the training of medical and para-medical personnel.

One of the objectives, other than the straight building of training and research facilities, is, of course, manpower training. I have here a list, which could be of interest to members of the House, of the more than 20 manpower categories which have benefited from the fund. Perhaps these tables also could be made an appendix to today's Hansard. I think the list would provide valuable information to all members of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For list referred to above see Appendix "B".]


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, let me just single out five categories from among the health professions which have benefited from the fund. They are first, dental assistants and dental hygienists. When the fund was first created ten years ago, 58 dental assistants graduated every year throughout Canada; now there are some 917 dental assistants who graduate each year. I think this is a remarkable achievement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Monique Bégin: In 1966, 82 dental hygienists graduated, and in 1976, some ten years after the establishment of the fund, the number increased to 350.
With regard to physicians-and we know how effective the health resources fund has been-the number of graduates throughout Canada rose from 880 in 1966 to 1,725 ten years later, so the number of physicians in our country has more than doubled. It is the same with physiotheraphists whose number rose from 232 to 446 graduates a year.
As to public health inspectors, we all know of the need for more public health inspectors if we want the new perspectives for preventive medicine to come into force in Canada. The public health inspectors who graduated ten years ago numbered 40, and are now 106. So, altogether this fund has done a great job.
Why put an end to a good fund two years before its natural end? The Government of Canada had a difficult decision to make in applying a major, traumatic restraint on its own expenditures. It has meant that in the current fiscal year a cut back of some half a billion dollars was made, and a cutback of $2 billion is proposed for the coming fiscal year.
In terms of expenditures and consequences on the quality of life in Canada, it is quite difficult for a minister with a major portfolio, such as the one I am responsible for, to select which programs have less priority or can be given second priority when compared to others.
I did not have much difficulty singling out the health resources fund as one which had done a great job. Regretfully
November 27, 1978

it is to be terminated now because of the difficult conditions in the country. The economies of the federal and provincial governments face severe problems. By its nature the fund is cost-shared 50/50 by the provinces and the federal government, and approximately 85 per cent of its capacity has been used. Because of provincial economic situations, major growth in the near future is not evident. For these reasons, it is with regret that I announce an early termination or cancellation of the health resources fund.
Proposals under the fund are made to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in different ways. I should like to take a few minutes to refer to that procedure in order to inform Canadians what submissions will not be honoured by the early cancellation of the fund. In addition to stating the extensive use of the fund by the provinces, namely 83.4 per cent, I should like to say that many provinces have used their share completely, such as Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Alberta. With this bill and the amendment I will propose in a few minutes, these provinces will have used fully their share of the health resources fund.
Submissions are proposed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in several forms. They can be of a verbal nature, for example, when provincial ministers or doctors at certain hospitals mention a project which is taking shape. This can be mentioned to the minister during a conference or some official function. Also it can be done by way of a letter of intent. Then draft submissions are made. Proposals can be made in various forms, other than the official application form devised for that purpose. The submissions are studied and the costs are arrived at by consultation between representatives of the federal and provincial departments involved. Then the final submission with the signature of the provincial authority is presented to the minister for signature, and a binding contract is established. As I said earlier, all binding contracts and submissions approved by the federal government will be fully honoured.
Due to the economic circumstances of the federal and provincial governments, unfortunately we decided to terminate the health resources fund. At that point some submissions were ready for signature and on my desk, but they could not be honoured because of the last minute administrative delays and pending policy decision.
At committee stage I will propose an amendment to Bill C-2 to change the final date for approval of projects from September 9, 1978, to November 3, 1978. The reason I am proposing this change of date is that since first reading of the bill it has become apparent, in order to achieve an equitable distribution of funds within the various provinces and territories, that it is necessary to provide for approval of some additional projects in several provinces. This would bring the rate of utilization by the provinces to a level of 85 per cent. These projects have been submitted, and they might have been approved by September 9 except for the administrative procedures involved in reviewing submissions.
Health Resources Fund Act
An additional step is required to improve further the equity in distribution. This concerns my province of Quebec and the Northwest Territories.

The Northwest Territories and Quebec show the lowest use of the health resources fund. 1 deeply regret to have to explain clearly that under the administrative procedures for the health resources fund, which is a 50/50 cost-shared program, the concerned province must take the initiative to send us a submission or a draft submission signed by competent authorities. In late September I received from British Columbia an application without even a signature. You cannot play like that with amounts of several million dollars. So the province in question must send in a submission, or a draft submission, signed by the appropriate provincial authorities which is then considered by us and eventually approved. I have reviewed in detail the case of the province of Quebec which underused the fund to see if a mistake or error had not been made in my own department; it is clear that even if we had wanted to help Quebec in a particular way, it was impossible to do so because all we had on file was a five-year plan of some 25 projects totalling a few hundred million dollars, actually a lot more than the total amount in the health resources fund, and on which we had been given no priority.
I pointed out the danger of leaving files open that way in an informal manner on the first occasion when I met my colleague from the province of Quebec, but without results, so that even if we had wanted to do so, it would have been impossible to honour other commitments than those I signed since last fall when I attended the opening of Laval's Cite de la Sante, the research wing at St. Luc Hospital and the Penfield wing at Royal Victoria. So, to give Quebec and the Northwest Territories a last chance to use a little more the portion of the fund equivalent to the number of people in the province of Quebec, I am proposing to add $3 or $4 million more. Unfortunately there were no tenders advanced enough for me to sign before November 3, so we are going to find within the department other ways of giving Quebec, if possible, $3 million more. So 1 invited my colleague, provincial social affairs minister Lazure, to tell me as soon as possible for which of the projects of his five-year plan he would like to receive $3 million more.
So I am giving the House notice of my intention to introduce an amendment to the bill providing, as I said, for a fairer distribution. That amendment will include the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Charlottetown. It will also include a project for a childrens' hospital in Calgary, projects for Saskatchewan, others, I believe, for Manitoba, and as I said, for the Northwest Territories and for Quebec but I think that it would be more appropriate to discuss it only at the standing committee in order to be able to analyse the details of that amendment and its consequences.

November 27, 1978
Health Resources Fund Act
I think that some of the members of parliament who will speak later on today on this funding may want to use this forum to give us help, if I may use that expression, in respect of the possible reductions, anticipated reductions, or non-existent reductions in medical research funds.
May I take a few minutes to review very rapidly the situation as regards the medical research scene in Canada. Basically two channels are used as sources of funds by researchers on the federal scene. The largest and well-known one is, of course, the Medical Research Council, which was provided with a budget of $60,002,000 for the current year in the main estimates, which was increased last June by an additional $3 million. This represents an 11 per cent increase over the previous fiscal year, 1977-78 and, therefore, is quite good. However, during the process of locating restraints in every department and agency I, unfortunately, had to reduce by $500,000 the base budget for the council for 1979-80. That is really a minimal amount. Negotiations are taking place at this time with Treasury Board to determine what will be the real increase for 1979-80 for the Medical Research Council. Up to this point I have been pleased with the government's stand on the increase for the Medical Research Council.
I am also very pleased that the cabinet is currently studying a proposal for the stable funding of the Medical Research Council to ensure that the level of biomedical research in Canada is maintained, and I hope to be able to make an early announcement in this regard.
As to the other avenue for grants and contributions for medical research use, biomedical researchers at the federal level turn to what we call in the jargon the NHRDP, the National Health Research and Development Program, of my own department. That program had a budget for the current fiscal year of $12 million. Unfortunately I had to reduce it by $2 million. At this point 1 would like to state quite clearly that I hope this apparently important cut of $2 million from $12 million will not affect the grants and contributions as much as it will overhead costs of NHRDP.
The MRC should be congratulated for the remarkable work it does in keeping administrative costs to a very minimum. I wish 1 had the figures with me. They can be given later in the debate. I want to mention particularly the fact that all the people who serve on the Medical Research Council, close to 150, and the experts who serve on the committees of the peer review system that exists in the MRC to allocate funds to the research projects submitted, work on a completely voluntary basis. That is remarkable when we think of the numerous corporations and Crown corporations, private and public, that pay per diem fees to their members. The people serving on the MRC are not paid, and I wanted to point that out to other Canadians because I think this represents a remarkable contribution to medical research in this country.
I hope to have the NHRDP of my own department take the example of the MRC and decrease their administrative over-

head costs as much as possible. Let me point out that while the administrative costs of the program are comparatively higher, they are subject to the requirements of the Auditor General and to our own audit of various grants and contributions.
Let me conclude by saying that the health resources fund during the period 1966-78 has met the objective of providing necessary facilities on a national basis to train health personnel in sufficient numbers to meet current and anticipated demands. This has also equipped the provinces and the territories with beautiful and very well regarded medical facilities, hospitals and laboratories, located throughout the country.
In concluding my remarks at second reading of a measure to cancel the national health resources fund two years earlier than forecast, let me say to the medical community, in particular the biomedical community, I wish them well for continuing development. We have established with Canadian taxpayers' money the basis of a good network of health facilities throughout the country; that is very important, and that was the purpose of this fund. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I was rather amazed at the approach the minister has taken, speaking on behalf of the government, concerning this rather shabby piece of legislation. She seems to indicate that medical research in this country is in better condition than it has ever been and that there really are no problems in this field.
Let me quote from Dr. Jacques Genest, director of the Clinical Research Institute of Montreal, the minister's own city. He said:
No other nation of the western world has treated biomedical research in such a disastrous way-
That does not confirm what the minister just told us about this. He went on to say that one of the results of this policy is that between 300 and 500 biomedical research workers were lost in the fierce competition for funds. I wonder why the minister does not explain that, if things are going so well in research.
Dr. Genest went on to say that professional insecurity has killed the motivation of young doctors who need to train for five years in a specialty and spend another four or five years becoming research workers.
Those are statements by a person who is dedicating his entire life to research. They are somewhat contrary to what the minister has tried to lead us to believe. In her introduction she seemed to praise the health resources fund while chopping it. That is a rather paradoxical approach to government. She cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker-she cannot be talking out of both sides of her mouth about this fund. Either the fund is good and deserves support, or it is bad and deserves to be chopped. She is saying it is good and deserves to be chopped. That kind of logic does not make much sense to me, and I am sure it is only logic that the Liberal government of this day could put forward.
November 27, 1978

In her comments she used the word "dramatic." She said that the government has to take dramatic steps in its restraint program. Whether she realized or not, she put her finger on the nail when she said that, because those are the only kinds of cuts this government is making in its restraint program-those which are dramatic, those which evoke or stimulate an outcry or response from the people of Canada. When this kind of dramatic cut is examined carefully, it is revealed as nothing more than political grandstanding. If the government were serious about making cuts it would forget about drama and would look at the Auditor General's report. If ministers took the time to study this report, they would see the hundreds of pages of suggestions of where the efficiency of government could be improved, where improved accountability methods could save millions of dollars, if not billions.
For some strange reason, however, these recommendations appear year after year in the Auditor General's report, except that each year the circumstances are worse. The government talks about dramatic cuts in spending but seems to avoid those recommendations which would not be so dramatic but which would correct the extravagant waste of millions of dollars. I have to object to this kind of an approach with all the vigour I possess-an approach by a government that is more concerned with drama than with increasing efficiency and doing something about the excessive waste imposed by its practices and policies.
Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are not very impressed with the proposals contained in this bill. As the minister indicated, the health resources fund was established in 1966. The sum of $500 million was set aside to assist provinces in the establishment of health training facilities and research facilities. About 25 per cent of this was to go toward research. So far, $416 million has either been committed or already spent. The proposal in this bill as it was originally drawn would allow the federal government to welch on its commitment to the tune of $84 million. Of that fund, three-quarters was allocated to the construction of facilities for training health professionals, acquiring research equipment, and training Canada's brilliant young people for careers in the health field.
Through its austerity program the government has decided to chop this fund. The thing that concerns me most is the method used, which again is typical of this government. It did not bother to tell the provinces in advance; it did not bother to consult with the provinces in advance but just sent a telex about five days after the intention was made public.
In order to confirm these statements, in case either of the ministers in the House should try to challenge them, I have here responses from each of the provinces about this bill. I specifically asked each province whether it had been consulted in advance of the government's intention to cut the health resources fund being made public. The New Brunswick minister replied that he was advised by the minister but not consulted.


Monique Bégin: New Brunswick used it up.
Health Resources Fund Act


Paul Yewchuk: Nevertheless, they were not consulted.


Monique Bégin: There was not a penny left.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that none of the provinces were consulted prior to a unilateral declaration about a change in an agreement which involved the federal and all provincial governments. The minister and her predecessor, who is also in the House, may shout across to me that some of the provinces have used all their allocation, and that may be so, but nevertheless they are still parties to the agreement-


Marc Lalonde: There is no agreement.


Paul Yewchuk: -and if federal-provincial relations are to work then there must be consultation when federal-provincial contracts are to be broken by the federal government.


Marc Lalonde: There is no contract.


Paul Yewchuk: I have here a comment from British Columbia, which was not consulted prior to the announcement that the health resources fund was to be terminated. The minister in that province indicates that he communicated his displeasure to the federal minister. The Nova Scotia minister replied to my inquiry that there had been no consultation since he came to office. The Newfoundland minister indicated that his province was not consulted prior to the announcement that the program was to be terminated, and writes that their experience in this respect is similar to that of other provinces. Manitoba was informed by telex but not consulted. The same applies to Ontario-"not consulted"; Saskatchewan, "not consulted"; Alberta, "not consulted"-


Monique Bégin: They used all the funds.


Paul Yewchuk: They did not.


Monique Bégin: Ontario did.


Paul Yewchuk: Yes, Ontario did say they had used all their funds. Alberta did not. In any case the Ontario government was not consulted even though they had received their funds. It was still part of a federal-provincial agreement. Alberta was not consulted. Quebec was not consulted.
The minister went to great lengths to say that Quebec has not used up its funds and has not submitted any projects which were priorized in the proper manner. If that is the case, it is all the more reason why there should have been some consultation with that government prior to the announcement of this bill. I want to ask the minister why there was no consultation with the government of Quebec prior to such an announcement. Surely she cannot say Quebec received all its funds. This seems to me to indicate that the minister had no real desire to concern herself with the reaction of the provinces. She simply decided, according to the instructions given her, perhaps by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or someone else, that she would do a little bit of mass media grandstanding and make this announcement without consulting the people directly involved.
1524

November 27, 1978
Health Resources Fund Act
The minister also stated that Prince Edward Island had received all its funds. This is at variance with what I have been told. They indicate they have not received much of their funds as yet. That may be why the minister is introducing an amendment to this bill. Perhaps it would put them in a better position, but when the bill was introduced there was no evidence that Prince Edward Island had been consulted or had received a significant portion of its share of the funds.
There is no doubt in my mind that the provinces are objecting strenuously to the amendment. They find themselves in the middle of construction projects, training programs for which they-


Monique Bégin: They are opposing the amendment? They are begging for the amendment.


Paul Yewchuk: The minister is interjecting again. She has just finished her remarks but she seems to have a lot more to say. If she likes, Mr. Speaker, I will sit down and let her finish her speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question to clarify his speech, please?


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I will reserve five minutes at the end of my remarks for the minister to make clarifications. She can ask any questions she wants then, and perhaps also in the standing committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You have unlimited time. Five minutes at the end of unlimited time?


Paul Yewchuk: We do have unlimited time. At the rate of interference from the other side we will need unlimited time to get through my notes before the day is over.
As I said, the provinces are indeed objecting to this unilateral welching out of a commitment. In my view that is not the way to run a country. Some provinces were advised at the outset that their projects would qualify. However, at the time of the announcement of this bill there are some projects which have not yet been approved with the result that the provinces are now left dangling. I am sorry the minister was not more specific in terms of her proposed amendment to this bill respecting an additional $15 million. We are not in a position to know what projects she had approved to cover that extra $15 million. I know it has been tabled-


Monique Bégin: I said it.


Paul Yewchuk: I have not had a chance to see the materials to which she has referred. For example, the government of Alberta was left up in the air concerning a children's hospital in Calgary. This results in a $3.5 million shortfall for this project-


Monique Bégin: I signed it. I said it.


Paul Yewchuk: The minister now states she signed it.


Monique Bégin: You did not listen.


Paul Yewchuk: I am glad to hear that.
Respecting the province of Manitoba, which I said was notified but not consulted in advance, it has committed capital projects based on the premise that at least for capital projects federal funds would be available to the extent set out in the Health Resources Fund Act. If that support is withdrawn, Manitoba will be required to fund an additional $7.2 million from provincial sources. Projects submitted for consideration by the federal health and welfare department to which no federal commitment has been made include the Seven Oaks project for $4.7 million. Planning and preparation are under way but projects which have not been submitted yet include the Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation for an amount of $1.4 million, and the energy system for the Health Sciences Centre for the amount of $1.1 million. A telex was received by Manitoba from the minister five days after this bill was made public to the press.
The province of Newfoundland was also informed but not consulted. However, Newfoundland announced it had received its allocated funds and was not too concerned. But it found that it was not now in a position to help the other Atlantic provinces which had helped Newfoundland with projects in the past.
Nova Scotia had not been notified. That province will lose $2.2 million for proposed projects planned but not yet approved as of September 9, 1978. These projects included renovation and equipment for nursing units, in the areas of physiotherapy and occupational therapy, as well as rehabilitation equipment and other non-specific projects.
In the case of British Columbia a large amount of money was required for its development program which, as the minister had indicated, had to fit into a five-year development plan for health resources. This has been severely curtailed.
I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the on again off again policies of this particular administration are causing serious discontent among the provinces, and have done so for the past ten years. The general approach that this minister and the Prime Minister uses, and which the previous minister of national health and welfare used when he occupied that position, seems to be one of confrontation. I will not use the word deliberate, but one could easily conclude that deliberate confrontation with the provinces is going on, perhaps to create a hassle for reasons which could include some political expediency for this federal administration.
It is nothing short of criminal negligence when funds are cut for health research and facilities in this way. We know that, in the long run, every human being in this country will be affected during his or her lifetime. This government seems to be saying in this particular instance that the saving of dollars seems to be more important than good health. In my view, and I am sure hon. members will agree, this is certainly false economy.
November 27, 1978

I mentioned earlier that about one-quarter of this fund has been allocated toward medical research. We already know from previous comments that I have made in this House along with other members, and indeed representatives of the research community both inside and outside of parliament, that funding of medical research has already been seriously eroded. Unsalvagable damage has been done to the research capability of this country as well. Numerous laboratories are idle. Hundreds of research workers have left the country, or have left their careers to do other things in order to keep body and soul together. Various technicians have been relieved of their duties and are on the unemployment rolls which are already bulging. In general, the policies of this government have been creating havoc in research and have caused stagnation in the general attitude toward research. In Montreal, the minister's own city, a researcher said last April that he was close to a breakthrough in successful eye transplants. However, he did not carry on his experiments any further because his laboratory was "broke". This researcher made a public appeal for funds in order that he could continue.
There is no doubt about it that biomedical research in Canada is in a critical phase. In my opinion, the minister's words sounded rather hollow, if not cynical, when she stated she wished the research community the best. On the one hand she is wishing the research community the best, and on the other she is cutting their throats. It seems to me that she cannot have it both ways. If she wishes them the best and understands the value of their work, she should not be cutting their throats.
I have mentioned that hundreds of research workers are out of work in Canada. As long as this government is in power nothing will be done about that. The reason that nothing will be done stems from the fact that perhaps research contributions in the past have not created enough political drama for this government. They have not given the government the kind of political expectations it expects, and the research community is therefore being dumped. It is time that this government realized that it is foolish to think that by cutting research spending, it will make significant savings in the health field. It has been proven, over and over during the past few years by various researchers, that spending on research is the only way that health care spending can be cut in the long run without reducing the effectiveness of the service. In fact, one can cut health care costs through research and improve the health care that is delivered to the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Yewchuk: That is exactly what this party wants to do. I hope it will have the chance to do that when the time comes following the next election.
Just to outline some examples, a well-known researcher in Saskatchewan has recently concluded a study which clearly shows that for every dollar invested in research today, ten years down the road $20 will be saved in permanently reduced health care costs. If the minister is really concerned about
Health Resources Fund Act
saving money on health care, it is obvious that research is the best way to accomplish that.
Cutting research is not a saving. Indeed, it increases the cost to the taxpayer. I will give some examples of what I mean by that. It cost $41 million to develop the polio vaccine. That was the total cost. Since it has been in use in this country, since 1955, it has saved the people of Canada $200 million per year. Just that one successful piece of research has saved this country more than four times the amount of the total expenditure on research each year since 1955. It is astonishing, to say the least, that any government that has the slightest concern about its people and the cost of health care would say it can save money by cutting research. That one example clearly shows that increasing spending on research is the only way to save money in the long run.
I will give another example. Measles immunization represents a saving of at least $10 million per year in permanently reduced health care costs. Research on hemophilia, a bleeding disease, has saved $20 million a year in hospitalization costs alone.
The research project on blindness in premature babies cost $34,000. The annual saving from that research has been $24,000 for every one dollar spent.
I could give a lot of other examples. However, I will just refer the minister to the speech I made on this subject in this place on October 30, 1978. If she reads that carefully, she will be more informed as to why cutting research funds is not the way to reduce health care costs in this country.
The role of government has changed drastically. With this change has developed increasing confusion about the relationship between national and provincial governments. Moreover, the responsibilities of both levels of government have become blurred, with tremendous overlapping and confrontation in inter-governmental relationships. I have already touched on that. Evidence of confrontation is the provincial reaction to the amendment to the Health Resources Fund Act now under discussion.
In a federal system, direct consultation among the responsible governments is essential as a means of ensuring that the goals of all governments are better integrated and more sensitive to the regional and national requirements. For a federal-provincial system of government to operate smoothly, effectively, and for the benefit of the people, there must be mutual respect between the provincial and federal governments. There must be a mutual feeling of trust.
The provinces need to trust the federal government. If the federal government makes a commitment, they need to rely on that in order to do their planning for the future. When the federal government takes the position that commitments are made to be broken, the feeling of trust breaks down. This is why the federal-provincial system has broken down and why unity in this country has been so shattered in the ten years of this regime.
1526

November 27, 1978
Health Resources Fund Act
We in the Progressive Conservative party believe that if we can ensure that federal policies give adequate weight to legitimate provincial concerns, we will have gone a long way toward easing the present tensions of the system of government which has created unnecessary conflict in Canada, and toward ensuring that a government and Parliament of Canada will be an accurate reflection of our current realities.


Miss B6gin:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) agreed to accept a question at the end of his speech. For the majority of his speech, he did not refer to the Health Resources Fund but spoke of medical research. We agree that more money would be welcome in medical research. He spoke of the bill under consideration for only a few minutes, and in that time referred to a broken contract. I have tried to show in black and white that all contracts presented have been signed and have been fully honoured. I would like the hon. member to clarify his statement.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the health resources fund was a commitment made in 1966 by the Liberal government of that day, for $500 million to be allocated to the provinces for the various projects which I outlined in my speech. That commitment was made by the then federal government in good faith. That was before the current Prime Minister and minister came to office with their own approach to federal-provincial relations.
The provinces accepted that in good faith in 1966. They were instructed at that time that they had to present five-year plans and submit specific projects. They were told that if they abided by the rules set out by the federal government, the commitments at that time would be met. The minister has now broken those commitments. Regardless of how she tries to weasel out of it, she cannot escape the fact that a commitment was made to the provinces, and today that commitment is being broken.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to make a few comments on the speech just made by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) who spoke first in this debate on behalf of his party. His speech today was like virtually every speech made by members of his party, either in this House or in committee, when estimates are being discussed. They always oppose the government's proposal for a reduction of funds, in this case for the health resources fund, and pledge, directly or implied, that a Conservative government would do more.
I have not been able to understand, and still cannot understand, how that party can propose to cut expenditures, as it has said it will, and reduce the number of people working for the federal government by 20,000 for each of three years, and at the same time oppose every suggestion made by the present government for reductions. There is a basic dishonesty in that approach to which the members of the Conservative party ought to give serious consideration.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. I would not do so because I have made my comments, but he accuses us of dishonesty, something I do not like. I think he should withdraw that remark. If the hon. member had not been sleeping in his seat while I was speaking, he would have heard me outline how increased expenditures on research would save this country money in the future. Our approach is that you can reduce health care costs in the long term by increasing research in this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that is not a point of order, but a point of debate.


David Orlikow: As you correctly pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that was not a point of order but a point of debate. I am not saying that the hon. member for Athabasca was dishonest. I am saying there is something improper, incorrect and, I think, dishonest in the arguments constantly advanced by the members of the Progressive Conservative party. They would spend more money on medical research, scientific research, or cultural affairs, as the hon. member who has just left the House has said, or agriculture or anything else, and at the same time substantially reduce expenditures of the federal government without reducing the standard or level of service. I think they would find, as the Conservative government of Manitoba has found, that there is not that kind of fat in any of the government's operations, and that if they really propose to cut expenditures they must do it by cutting standards of service.
I want to spend most of my time dealing with this proposal which has been put forward by the government and explained by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin). I am sure she will not be surprised when I say we intend to vote against this bill. This bill is part of the cutback program announced by the government back in September of this year as part of its plan to defer, review, and cut back some $29 million which would have been spent under the provisions of the Health Resources Fund Act passed more than ten years ago. Under these cutbacks a total of $370 million was to be cut from federal-provincial programs. Cuts in such programs as the health resources fund amounted to $150 million, along with $220 in transfer programs between the federal and provincial governments. What the federal government has done by its recent action is this: it has already exceeded that cutback goal, and therefore we see no reason for proceeding with this bill. The minister shakes her head. She says no. We have the figures, however, and if she disagrees with them I am sure she will have plenty of time in which to disprove them.
The cutbacks to date are as follows: $55 million in equalization grants, $150 million by deferring the community services program, $160 million by deferring the social services legislation, and $25 million under the public utilities income tax transfer, making a total of $390 million. Proceeding with this bill would increase the cuts by a further $29.5 million, up to $420 million.
November 27, 1978

I suggest the government is out of control in its restraint program. It feels it must outdo the Conservatives who have been preaching restraint for a few years now. It is now $50 million above the target for cutting back federal-provincial programs it announced in September. Last Friday it wiped out another $20.6 million by eliminating the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs and 185 employees.
It is important to face the fact that the federal government is again going back on a promise made to the provinces. In 1967 the federal government promised it would put up $500 million for health resources fund programs. The minister takes some comfort from her statement that they had either spent or committed more than 80 per cent of that $500 million. I want to remind the minister that there is a hell of a lot of difference between $500 million in 1978 and the $500 million which was promised by the then minister of national health and welfare in 1966 and 1967. To meet the goals conceived in those years when this program was first proposed would require, today, close to a billion dollars.


Monique Bégin: How is it the provinces did not apply then?


David Orlikow: That is an old story. Very often it happens that the provinces, particularly the have-not provinces, possess neither the financial nor the technical ability to meet the timetable set by the federal government. I would have thought the present minister would have known this and given them some extra time, rather than cutting the provinces off without discussion, in a unilateral way.
I do not know whether the hon. lady has read some of the speeches which were made by the then minister of national health and welfare when he brought this legislation forward, but there is a world of difference between what he proposed, the discussions he promised the provinces, and the unilateral decision which has been made by the government and by this minister who-under tremendous pressure from her cabinet colleagues, I am sure-has brought down the measure we are considering.
Consider what the minister of national health and welfare said in June, 1966:
Such a program will undoubtedly help to create a professional climate to attract increasing numbers of able people to study and practice medicine and related professions and will thereby improve still further the quality of care available to our people.
He went on to say it would require large investment and lengthy planning in co-operation with the provinces, and that government proposals had been prepared on the basis of visits to provincial departments of health. Were visits made to the appropriate provincial departments when the federal government decided to terminate this program with almost $30 million unexpended? No, they were not. It was done on a unilateral basis without the consent or approval of the provinces. The basic purpose at that time, according to the minister, was to meet the need for trained people and catch up where there was a shortage of trained personnel. Have we done these things? Of course we have not.
Health Resources Fund Act
I am sure the minister has received many more representations than have come to me on the subject, but I have received quite a few with regard to the shortages which still exist. If I have time I will put on the record some of the comments made by those who work in the field. They are the ones who ought to be satisfied, they are the ones who, if they are not satisfied, come to members of the opposition and communicate with the press.
When we object to cutbacks of this kind we are not speaking in a partisan way, though some may think otherwise; we are expressing the views of those who are most concerned with the situation.
The minister went on to say at that time that an ad hoc technical committee met with governments and national associations, estimated provincial needs, and dealt with needs for long-term projections as a basis for allocating funds and the creation of a health resources advisory committee. He was concerned there should be discussion of that kind.
What I want to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare now is this: were consultations of that kind held with the provincial governments and with the various professional disciplines before the government embarked on its present course of action? And was any agreement forthcoming with regard to those proposals? I do not think there was, but I would be interested in getting the views of those organizations as expressed to the minister if she has them.
The former minister said the federal government had stressed the importance of close consultation and continuing liaison between the federal and provincial governments at all levels and that, although the moneys would not be fully used in the early years, their long-range provision would ensure that adequate opportunities were made available for the provision of health facilities. That was the purpose of the bill. It is obvious to anyone who would want to look at the facts that we still do not have adequate physical facilities or funding of programs to attract into the field of health care the kinds and numbers of people who are required. We still have people who are working for salaries that are a disgrace. There is a case in Winnipeg, and I am sure that it is not an isolated one, of a man with a Ph.D. in chemistry who was working in the field of cancer research for a number of years and was drawing a salary of $13,000 a year.
The minister had some flattering words for the people who work in medical research, and they deserve them. However, this country does not deserve to have the kind of dedication it gets from these people in these fields because it does not treat them in such a way that they could get a feeling that the country appreciates what they are doing to help meet our health needs.
When the bill was introduced in 1966 many members on this side had reservations about it, which they expressed, but which were ignored by the government. I do not often go back to previous speeches I have made and remind hon. members of what I said, but I could not help, while looking at the speech

November 27, 1978
Health Resources Fund Act
made by the then minister of national health and welfare, looking at the speech I made on that occasion. At that time I pointed out that the figure of $500 million was not based, as far as we could see, on any scientific or realistic assessment of what was required. I said that the figures seemed to have been pulled out of thin air. I must have been correct because today, despite the very sharp increases in the cost, which means that the $500 million allocated in 1967 is worth today approximately $300 million, this figure would have to double or quadruple to be on a par with spending by the government of the United States on medical research.
I said that we needed to spend another $100 million a year if we were to come close to the efforts being made in the United States. We are a long way from spending that other $100 million per year on medical research, even though $100 million allocated in 1967 would probably be worth $160 million today.
1 pointed out that if there were sufficient funds for personnel and the necessary facilities for medical research the brain drain of scientists out of the country would disappear. However, the brain drain continues and will probably accelerate given the stop-and-go approach this government has taken toward scientific research in general and medical research in particular.
The minister seems to have rationalized what she is doing by saying that things are going at least moderately well. What we must do, in discussing this bill, is not just look at the termination of this program and the elimination of $29Vi million from this fund, but at the whole picture of what this government is doing.
Without going into great detail 1 would like to go over some of the cuts which have been made by this government. The government has cut $8.5 million from supportive science in the Department of Agriculture, $3 million from the extension to the Lethbridge Research Laboratory, $2.8 million in contributions toward construction at veterinary colleges, $2.7 million from the Canadian Dairy Commission for product research and promotion programs; $.8 million in grants to universities for water resources research, although much of our water is polluted; $1.4 million from the Alberta oil sands environmental research program, $700,000 in stratospheric research, $2.7 million from the pollution abatement technology program, $2.8 million from the Newfoundland Environment Centre and Maritime Forest Research Centre, and a support cutback to the Department of Fisheries of $11.1 million.
There were also cutbacks in the technology development program in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce of $2 million, $13.5 million from Statistics Canada, including $1.3 million in post-secondary education programs administered through the education, science and cultural division of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
I come now to the cutbacks made in the Department of National Health and Welfare. I remind hon. members that the cuts must be added to the $29.5 million which the minister is already proposing to eliminate in this program. The total science cutbacks-



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro)-Forestry-Decision not to close Petawawa research station; the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith)-Labour conditions-Unemployment figures published by Statistics Canada-Status Indians; the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan)-Feasibility study on coal mine in Donkin, N.S.
a (1702)
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, namely, notices of motions and public bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Are notices of motions Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 stood by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: We will now proceed to notice of motion No. 8 standing in the name of the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie).


TRANSPORT
John Carnell Crosbie: That this House directs the government to reject the recommendation of the Sullivan Royal Commission on Transportation Services to and within Newfoundland that proposed the discontinuing of railway services in Newfoundland and reaffirm that Newfoundland should have a vigorous and effective railway mode of transportation and that the government accept the other recommendations of the interim report of the Sullivan commission and discuss the implementation of the same with the government of Newfoundland and this house urges the government to consider the advisability of the government agreeing to meet the financial losses of the Newfoundland railway, a railway system owned by the government but operated on behalf of the government by CN, so that CN will cease its attempts to sabotage and close the Newfoundland railway system and begin effective management to the railway mode of transportation for Newfoundland.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion is most timely because, if the House passes it today, it will forestall what can only be described as the murder of the Newfoundland railway. The
November 27, 1978

Newfoundland railway is being murdered today with malice aforethought by CN, aided and abetted by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) who has given CN carte blanche to "do in" the Newfoundland railway service as soon as possible, or within the next six to eight months in any event.
My motion asks the House, first, to direct the government to reject the recommendation of the Sullivan Royal Commission on Transportation Services. That was the recommendation that the railway service in Newfoundland be discontinued. The commission based that recommendation on the conclusion that it was no longer economically feasible to operate a railway service in Newfoundland. I will come back to that point later. The commission made that recommendation with reluctance; two commissioners for, against one who dissented.
The motion also asks the House to reaffirm that Newfoundland should have a vigorous and effective railway mode of transportation. Surely we should do that. How can anyone argue that one province in the Canadian federation should not have a rail mode of transportation? I should like to see anyone suggest that for Saskatchewan, Quebec, New Brunswick or Nova Scotia, and see where they would get.
My motion also asks the government to accept the other recommendations of the Sullivan commission and to discuss their implementation with the government of Newfoundland and this House, and that the government meet the financial losses of the Newfoundland railway. There is no reason in the world why CN should have to meet the losses of the Newfoundland railway. That railway is owned, lock, stock, and barrel by the Government of Canada, which was given it free and gratis on April 1, 1949, by the Newfoundland public. They own it and asked to run it, and there is no reason in God's world why CN should have to meet any of the financial losses caused by the operation of the Newfoundland railway. These losses should be met by the people of Canada through the House and through the government.
My motion goes on to propose that CN be instructed to start giving vigorous and effective management to this railway to see if it has a chance of becoming more viable in the future, because in the last ten years CN has done everything within its power to drive freight and cargo off the Newfoundland railway, having driven passengers off with the connivance of premier Smallwood in 1968. In the 1960s the premier was promised that Canada would meet 90 per cent of the cost of the inferior Trans-Canada highway if his government would not oppose the abandonment of the railway passenger service. The Pearson government, having achieved that, in the 1960s we had the obsequious slogan of the Newfoundland government on Trans-Canada and the passenger service was replaced by an inferior bus service, upon which this commission reports, and which I will mention in a moment.
We will not trust Canada again to do away with our railway on the basis that our freight and cargo will be moved more effectively by other means. Their promises have been broken with regard to the railway passenger service and they will be in this other connection.
Newfoundland Rail Transportation
I want to cite the following to members of the House. Surely no one argues that a rail service must be profitable. Let me quote from the Economist of July 15, 1978, where, in an article on railways, the following is stated:
No major national railway makes a profit. Britain's is one of the few to come close. Austria spends 1.8 per cent of gross domestic product propping up its railways. Belgium 1.4 per cent. West Germany more than 0.8 per cent and France more than 0.7 per cent. British Rail's so-called "contract" with the government (to compensate for losses caused by "socially desirable" but unprofitable passenger services) amounts to $364 million a year-only 0.3 per cent of g.d.p.
We know that in nation after nation the railway does not make money, but that does not mean to say that those nations do away with their rail services. They are still needed, if not on economic grounds then on social and other grounds, and they are still kept operating. But in Newfoundland we are supposed to be different, we are supposed to agree that if our railway is not making money-at least CN says it is not-it should be abandoned, done away with, and we should depend thereafter on the highway or on the sea, and that we are not to have the rail mode. Well, Mr. Speaker, we do not agree to that.
The Sullivan report has been in the hands of the minister since June of this year. Six months have gone by without one shred of activity, without an acceptance or a rejection of it or of any of its recommendations. The minister made the report public on July 24, that is, over four months ago, and there is still no action by the minister.
When the minister appointed the commission on March 28, 1977, he had a press conference in Newfoundland. I wish to quote from the Evening Telegram of March 29, 1977, in which the minister is quoted as having said that this study:
- *won't be just another study to lie on the shelf because the province is "at a critical point" for decisions, transport minister Otto Lang yesterday maintained.
"I consider this one the final one," he said following a press conference in St. John's, for "we cannot wait any longer for tough decisions ... and good decisions for Newfoundland."
Further on in the article it is said:
And it will report its findings and recommendations to the Minister of Transport by the end of 1977.
The minister was going to act, and he wanted the commission to report by the end of 1977. It reported in June of 1978, but he has not done a thing since. That is the kind of decision we are getting from this minister-he has not done a thing. What he is doing is standing by while the CN cuts the railway adrift. I will explain that in more detail in a moment.
Everyone in Newfoundland who has any position in public life is opposed to the recommendation that the railway be abandoned. I brought the matter before the Atlantic caucus of the federal PC caucus in Ottawa in August of this year and the party agreed that there should be a continuing rail mode of transportation throughout the Atlantic region. The following motion was passed:
That the PC party affirm the need for a continuing rail mode of transportation throughout the Atlantic region as a national policy and as a tool for continuing regional development and opposes any attempt to abandon rail transportation services in any province considering that government must ensure financial support for a rail service with new direction and emphasis by competent management prepared to compete vigorously for the traffic available, and the

November 27, 1978
Newfoundland Rail Transportation
PC party condemns the benign neglect of railway services, now the Liberal government policy in the region.
That was the position of the federal PC party on August 14, and it still is.
Then the provincial Liberals came out against abandoning the railway. Our leader went to Newfoundland and confirmed our position a few days after the caucus meeting here in Ottawa. On August 22, the Newfoundland government came out in opposition to the abandonment of the Newfoundland railway and said it must continue. It stated that under the terms of the union it cannot be abandoned without the consent of both governments. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was sent a wire to that effect.
Finally, the government broke its silence, and on September 12 the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson), the cabinet minister from Newfoundland, made a statement which was quoted in the Evening Telegram of September 13. He said that the Newfoundland government's decision not to accept that recommendation "puts this particular issue to rest". He went on to say that the Canadian government fully accepted that decision. The article quotes him as stating:
Now that there has been a decision not to consider abandoning the railway, 'the onus is now on all concerned to test the validity of the proposition that rail freight traffic can be increased and the service made more attractive to potential users,' Jamieson said.
This will require, among other things, 'a new sense of commitment on the part of Canadian National Railways. As the designated operator of the system it must accept the decision.'
Jamieson said he has recommended to transport minister Otto Lang, 'that he require the CNR to prepare without delay detailed proposals outlining ways in which rail freight may be made more efficient and attractive.'
What has happened to all those fine words of September 13? The Secretary of State for External Affairs then went on to say that there must be federal-provincial negotiations to agree on an over-all approach to the report's recommendations, and that federal-provincial negotiations "on a very comprehensive scale" must begin right away. When are these very comprehensive negotiations going to begin?
Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that I have been writing the Minister of Transport, (Mr. Lang), with copies to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, since early August? I asked him what action he was going to take on these recommendations, and what steps he was going to take to keep the railway operating in Newfoundland. On August 3 I wrote to the Minister of Transport concerning the bus service. On August 21 I wrote to the Minister of Transport concerning the recommendations for the railway. I pointed out to him that certain trains were being discontinued, that conditions of business were being changed, and that business was leaving the railways because of the uncertainty. 1 asked him to make a statement. I wrote to the Minister of Transport on September 6, bringing the same things to his attention. Then the Secretary of State for External Affairs spoke in Newfoundland on September 13, and nothing else happened.

Around October 14 we learned that the CN in Newfoundland was laying off 20 people from its freight service, and cancelling two trains from Corner Brook to St. John's and from Port aux Basques to St. John's on weekends. The minister was questioned in the House on October 17 as to why this was being done, when he promised that there would be no layoffs until the final report of the commission was received. The minister gave us his gobbledygook that there would be no layoffs except those related to changes in the level and flow of business, the ordinary sort. The minister said that he would look into these layoffs, these changes in circumstances, and report to me. I have not heard a word since October 17. We cannot believe or trust the minister one single iota in what he says or does. He is the most untrustworthy, most heartless minister I have ever come across in my long experience, provincially and federally. 1 still have not heard from him.


Mr. Benjamin:: What about Otto?


John Carnell Crosbie: I am talking about the Minister of Transport.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He is the Grit who stole Christmas.


John Carnell Crosbie: That was on October 18. Then I learned that not only were these trains being cancelled but that CN was cutting its capital budget for next year in half in Newfoundland, that there would be layoffs of dozens of people in January, that 200 would not be taken on to improve the railbed next summer as a result of the cuts in its capital budget, and that there would be cuts in its maintenance budget. In other words, they are doing in the railway altogether. The CN is determined that it is not going to lose any more money on the Newfoundland railway.
So, I wrote the Secretary of State for External Affairs on October 24, drawing this to his attention. On October 30 I drew the drastic budget cuts to his attention, the fact that CN will not replace personnel, and other details which I do not have the time to give now. Still I have received no answer from either one of those ministers, except a perfunctory acknowledgment of my letters.
I have been asking since August, as well as has the Newfoundland government, for a meeting between the Rail unions, the ministers, and the Newfoundland government. I have been asking the government to tell CN that the government will meet its obligations, that it will meet any cash losses which they can prove are occurring, and that it will meet the necessary capital expenditures on the rail service. I asked for the government to direct them to carry this service on vigorously, or to get someone else in there who will. We cannot even get a meeting six months after this report came down. I wrote the Secretary of State for External Affairs on October 30. He has not responded; he has not arranged a meeting.
But there is a meeting tomorrow with these two ministers and a group from North Sydney and Port aux Basques. That meeting has been arranged since. It is to do with certain events on the CN marine services, where they are now using a private service from Halifax to St. John's, not using CN vessels, and laying off certain marine employees. This is going to affect the
November 27, 1978

longshoremen at Port aux Basques in the district of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. They are having a meeting tomorrow with these two ministers. But, the government of Newfoundland cannot get a meeting, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and myself cannot get a meeting with them, and the railway unions, which represent 2,000 to
3,000	people who receive their livelihood from working on the Newfoundland railway, cannot get a meeting with these mighty ministers. But when somebody from Port aux Basques in the district of the Secretary of State for External Affairs wants a meeting, a meeting is arranged almost immediately. This is the brutal political way in which these ministers operate.
Today the Minister of Transport, in answering a question, had the gall to suggest that support of the Newfoundland railway was one of the political and humanitarian aspects of his mighty service to the nation. I say the man is an ogre who has to be driven from office.
On Tuesday, December 5, we are having a meeting in St. John's. We are going to rock St. John's. The reverberations will be felt up here. Perhaps the hon. member for St. John's East will make it. He may have trouble with conflicting business which he has to do here. The railway unions will be involved, and other members of parliament from Newfoundland, if they are interested. The Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister of Transport, and Mr. Bandeen will be at that meeting to answer these 2,000 or 3,000 Newfoundlanders as to why they are being abandoned and thrown into the cold by the federal Liberal party here in Ottawa. They will want some answers: they will not like what they hear.
The railway is being crucified by inattention and neglect. I have confirmation from high sources in CN that the Minister of Transport has told them-


Mr. Collenette:: Name them.


John Carnell Crosbie: I will name them when I have to name them. He has told them, "You are to operate as a commercial operation. If you want to lay off people in Newfoundland, if you want to cut back trains in Newfoundland, if you want to use private shipping services in Newfoundland and this causes layoffs of dozens or hundreds, you can do it; you are to operate as a commercial service. Just let us know ahead of time how many you are laying off and when, but you have our permission to do it." That is the policy of the Minister of Transport here in Ottawa. But he will pretend, when he gets to the public, that he is trying to protect the Newfoundland railway.
The government's attitude is that the CN has permission to do away with the Newfoundland railway. By next February, if action is not taken by the government, the process will be well under way, and 2,000 or 3,000 people will lose their jobs. That is a serious thing in a province which already has an unemployment rate in excess of 16 per cent officially, and twice as much unofficially.
What will the government do? Will the government accept my motion or not? What will it do about the bus service? The Sullivan royal commission recommended no increase in fares
Newfoundland Rail Transportation
and found no substantial bus service-it attacked the bus service being offered, and said that there should be no increase in fares until there is a substantial increase in facilities. Then a week later the CN applied to the Canadian Transport Commission for a 36 per cent fare increase, and the government in Ottawa did nothing to prevent that. It allowed its creature, the CN bus service, with this inadequate service, to apply for a 36 per cent increase. This is now being fought before the courts and before that commission in Newfoundland. The government had not dealt with both recommendations.
The Sullivan commission recommended that the federal government pay for 90 per cent of the cost of improving the substandard Trans-Canada Highway in Newfoundland. We have not received a word from the Minister of Transport on that recommendation. The synchrolift in St. John's was recommended by the Sullivan commission six months ago. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) was batted to his knees by nanny, by his own nanny. He has a nanny now in the President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers (Mr. Andras), and he has a nanny in the Secretary of State for External Affairs who said, "No, you cannot have a synchrolift in St. John's until I tell you that you can have it." That recommendation was ignored by the minister.
We have the implementation of a year-round ferry service to Argentia recommended by the Sullivan commission. It was ignored by the hon. gentlemen opposite. We have a recommendation that there should be either no subsidies to direct water carriers to Newfoundland, or equal subsidies to all three carriers and not just a special subsidy which Clarke Newfoundland steamship service has been getting for the last ten or 15 years. That should cease, but there has been no action on that.
When the Minister of Transport was questioned here, he said that he was waiting for the final report of the Sullivan commission. Well, this is the final report. It does not say "interim." It says, "Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Newfoundland Transportation." He need wait no longer. In its preface, the commission itself said that the second volume of the report will contain, in addition to elaboration of important solutions, conclusions and recommendations based upon specific research projects completed during the summer. It is just a supplement. This is the final report; this is not an interim report. The minister has still not taken any action, because he said that he is waiting for the final report.
In March, 1977, he could not wait to get this report, its recommendations and conclusions. Today he does not care whether he has it or not because, in league with Mr. Bandeen of CN, he is hoping that CN will so cripple the Newfoundland railway in the next six months, that there will not be a chance for it to continue operating. There will not be a stick or a stone carried on that railway. Who will move their cargo with the kind of uncertainly which now faces the rail service? That is why this motion is before the House.
I know it will be talked out by gentlemen opposite because they have no choice. They have taken no action, and they will
1532

November 27, 1978
Newfoundland Rail Transportation be guilty of allowing the murder of the Newfoundland railway to occur, unless some action is taken here and now. I know there are others such as my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East, who will want to speak. Therefore I shall come to an end. But let me reiterate: we have a classic case here of the government trying to encourage CN secretly behind the scenes to do away with the railway, which Newfoundland brought into confederation on April 1, 1949. It was built from our sweat and blood. That little island off the coast of Canada that could not afford it in the 1880s and 1890s, in an act of faith constructed a railway across the 580 miles from St. John's to Port aux Basques, with a lot of vicissitudes, and it was a narrow gauge railway. We brought this in with us. It was given to the Canadian government, and now it is to be abandoned without even the admission that it is to be abandoned.
The Minister of Transport and Minister of Justice should have enough guts to say that he has told Mr. Bandeen he can shut down everything that is not making money in Newfoundland. If that is his instruction, let him come out and say it, because we want the answer. The 2,000 or 3,000 people down there working on this railway and their families, some 10,000 people, want this answer. This is the kind of heartless action that I am repeating to this House, with just a few of us here while down at the Conference Centre they are putting on a big pretence that they are interested in the economic development of Canada, and the saving of Canada economically. They are not interested at all. If they were, they would be acting to save the 3,000 jobs and the families of those who depend on the Newfoundland Railway. Therefore, I urge the House to support the motion, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, if there ever was a need for being convinced about pretense, certainly the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) has displayed that need this afternoon by taking up the time of the House with his motion.
I am always amused when listening to the hon. member who, as we know, was a former minister of finance in a Liberal administration in Newfoundland. We have heard him expound with equal enthusiasm the greatness of the Liberal Party of Canada when he was in that position. He always appreciated the transfer of payments, and he also appreciated very much the co-operation of the federal government in those times. He always went to great pain and at great length to express his thanks and appreciation on behalf of the people of Newfoundland. We now see some great transfigurations and great transfers in positions not only of philosophy but, indeed, of principle, when we listen to him.
I have the impression that for those of us in this House this afternoon and the listening audience the hon. member for St. John's West has given the best live definition of rhetoric in the way he addressed this House this afternoon. There is another word I suppose that would sum up equally well what he had to say about his motion, and that is gobbledygook.

This is a convoluted and lengthy motion, but it does give members an opportunity at least to put a few positive facts on the record in respect of transportation, and particularly transportation in the Atlantic area. I certainly want to profit from the occasion this afternoon by speaking of the great accomplishments of the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang). I should have thought there might have been a question of privilege in some of the remarks made by the hon. member for St. John's West in his attempted attack on the character of the Minister of Transport, which I found to be totally unparliamentary. I am sure that on a reflection of the record in Hansard tomorrow there will be a prima facie question of privilege the minister might want to pursue.


John Carnell Crosbie: I hope so.


Maurice James Harquail: This is not uncommon. It is typical of the type of attack we see all the time, whether during question period or in debate, which makes one always ask whether this is really what the citizens of St. John's West expected and wanted to hear-this type of irresponsibility, and irresponsible remarks made in this House, such as shown by the hon. member in his attack this afternoon on the Minister of Transport. On the contrary, I am delighted to note that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has left that hon. minister in that portfolio of transportation, because that minister has shown real leadership in transportation. We always say that constructive criticism is all right, but criticism for the sake of criticism without foundation is totally unacceptable.
As a result of the leadership of the Minister of Transport and of the president of Air Canada, a New Brunswicker, by the way, Mr. Claude Taylor, as well as through the good work of the president of the CN, Dr. Bandeen, we have seen both these Crown corporations show a profit. No one seems to want to mention this. Certainly no one from the other side of the House ever bothers to mention that fact. We realize that during those difficult years when they were not able to provide an efficient operation or produce a profit, there was justifiable criticism. We looked for ways and means to rectify the situation.
As a result of vision and the dynamic approach of this government we have been able to turn the corner in transportation, not only in respect of Air Canada but in respect of the CN as well. There is quite a bit of truth in that commercial that the CN is a business as well as a responsibility. I suspect that is what underpins the Sullivan report and its findings, that we cannot just continue to carry out operations which are not economically viable. I am sure that is the reason Dr. Bandeen and his team at the corporate level have taken the steps they have taken and have been successful in the recapitalization of that corporation, and able to separate the losing passenger service with the provision of that new service known as VIA Rail. The setting up of that corporation was the result of co-operation between CP and CN. It was a step taken to provide efficient, modern passenger service facilities to Canadians, and Canadians are now aware of that very positive
November 27, 1978

move, leaving the 90 per cent balance of business in freight and other services provided by CN in a most efficient fashion.
Having regard to air passenger service, I thank the hon. member for St. John's West for giving me, as a member for some years of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, the opportunity to state that 1 have had the privilege of travelling across this great country to visit harbour port facilities on the B.C. coast, in Vancouver, and on the east coast at St. John's, Saint John, New Brunswick and Halifax. I have had a first-hand look at the situation in those areas. Members of that standing committee have shown good faith in their interest in all transportation questions. They have gone from the nation's capital to examine, inspect and investigate at first hand the situations existing in respect of transportation, not only in central Canada but in western Canada and on the east coast.
I have many friends who are Newfoundlanders, and I am very proud of the contribution Newfoundlanders have made as Canadians, not only in respect of transportation but on all fronts. From what I have been able to observe, Newfoundlanders have a great deal more vision, more optimism, and a more positive outlook than we have had described by the hon. member for St. John's West this afternoon.
In reference to Newfoundlanders and transportation, let me take the opportunity of conveying my best wishes to the new president and chief executive officer of Eastern Provincial Airways, Mr. Steele. I certainly would want to take this opportunity of congratulating him on the assumption of those responsibilities. That airline has provided Canadian citizens in the Atlantic area with excellent air passenger service. It is a service that is first-class and compares favourably with any other in Canada today. Newfoundlanders can certainly be proud of the progress that smaller airline has been able to achieve in such a short period of time. One of the main reasons I am so pleased to make that comment today is that this airline has been able to provide a much needed service in the area of northern New Brunswick from Charlo to Montreal, linking us with the rest of Canada.
I have said on many occasions that not only do we find it important, from an economic point of view and for the future, to be linked with Montreal and central Canada, but on every occasion we have also urged the Minister of Transport and others in Air Canada and Eastern Provincial Airways as well as the CTC to consider this all-important air passenger service linking Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. It is an essential, fundamental development for the Atlantic area.
I am optimistic that through the new executive of EPA we will see an even greater expansion of the services they are providing already, keeping in mind that aspect that we are all pushing for, including the council of maritime premiers and the government of Newfoundland. We urge those who have responsibility for providing air passenger service to seize the
Newfoundland Rail Transportation first opportunity to provide that link in the four Atlantic provinces.	J
I should like to express my personal appreciation and admiration for the three commissioners and their spirit of public service to Canada and the province of Newfoundland which they have demonstrated in carrying out this difficult and complex task. These eminent and respected Newfoundlanders, at considerable personal sacrifice, have devoted the last year and one-half to this inquiry. They have given a high standard of service to the public.
It is because there is a need to understand more fully the implications of the recommendations to both the federal and provincial governments that the federal Minister of Transport and the provincial minister of transport and communications have set up a committee with representatives from each government to analyse the recommendations. Until there is a better understanding of the implications of the Sullivan report recommendations, I do not think it would be responsible for the government to reject the recommendations on the railway and accept all the rest, as proposed by the hon. member for St. John's West. Before any broad acceptance or rejection can be undertaken, the government must at the very minimum have available all the evidence that the Sullivan report can present. This, of course, includes the analysis of volume 2.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, I oppose the motion on the ground that the government cannot give the commission's work the credit it deserves until it has studied it further. The full and immediate implementation of all the recommendations with the exception of the railway recommendations would lead to very serious financial problems in this period of restraint on government expenditures. Only when those factors have been fully explored and understood by both governments can a decision be made.
Again, through you, Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my appreciation to the hon. member for St. John's West for his initiative in bringing this motion before the House. It gives me the opportunity to acknowledge the excellent work carried out on behalf of all Canadians by the eminent Minister of Transport who, with vision, wisdom and his leadership qualities, has been able to accomplish so much in a short period of time.
That brings me back to my earlier comment about how much I appreciate the fact that in his wisdom the Prime Minister left to the Minister of Transport the grave responsibility of budgeting for our transportation needs and of leading that department and other Crown corporations. His success with the Department of Transport, Canadian National Railways, Air Canada, Canadian Pacific and other corporations such as Eastern Provincial Airways in the Atlantic area is a measure of his distinction. He has brought a high degree of expertise and skill to negotiating with the various unions in an effort to bring a mood of tranquility to that important aspect of our economy.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak on the motion of the hon. member for
80067-26Vi

November 27, 1978
Newfoundland Rail Transportation
St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). We in this party agree with the purport of the motion-that the Sullivan commission recommendations on the Newfoundland railway should be rejected. It will be interesting to see how the government of Newfoundland acts in this matter.
I wish the hon. member for St. John's West would talk to people in his own party, particularly those from central Canada, who while they talk about restraint do everything they can to cut the throats of public corporations, those people who demand profit-taking and profit-making out of public utilities at the expense of people in the outlying regions of the country. I do not know how the hon. member can reconcile his stand with the stand of his party on public utilities and public transportation. It is the Tory demand for restraint and cutbacks that has caused the Liberal government to implement Tory policy in transportation and in other parts of the economy.
Newfoundland has never fully been part of confederation as far as transportation is concerned. It is no different from Vancouver Island, the Queen Charlotte or the Arctic Islands in this respect. The nineteenth century mythology is that profit takes precedence over people, over providing service. The Newfoundland railroad should function as part of the national rail transcontinental system. Ferry service and rail car movements between the island and the mainland should be considered in the same way as the Trans-Canada Highway or the CNR and CPR main lines on the mainland. They can and should be efficient. They may or may not make money in a given year, or just break even-perhaps even lose money-but the point is that they should provide service.
We not only oppose the Sullivan commission recommendations in this area, but we submit that they totally ignore the economic realities and social and economic necessities of transportation in Newfoundland, let alone the rest of the country. If the government of Newfoundland opts for a short-term benefit under the Sullivan report recommendations, they will have to give up their historic and statutory rights. The implementation of the Sullivan recommendations would require renegotiation of the terms of entry into confederation for the province of Newfoundland. In fact, the commission submits that if the province refused to co-operate in the requested constitutional change, then in its opinion there would be no other choice but to continue to full rail service. That is all the government of Newfoundland and the people of the province need to know: they must fully and completely refuse to co-operate in the abandonment of their rail service.
I had the pleasure of spending a week in St. John's West at the time my hon. friend to my right won the by-election. I recall holding a press conference calling for the rebuilding of the Newfoundland railway lines to standard gauge and the enlarging of the transportation capacity of railway cars from the island to the mainland. I recall that an article in a St. John's daily newspaper pooh-poohed the idea and said it could not be done, that it would cost too much money. I did not hear about that from the then Conservative candidate in the St. John's West riding. However, he now makes a speech endors-

ing what I said two years ago in St. John's. The day will come, of course, when we "Mayo" implement my recommendations.
The Sullivan commission ignores some fairly fundamental things. The commission particularly ignores what energy costs in a place like Newfoundland. The abandonment of that rail line, according to our research, will mean a total energy increase of 6,350,000 gallons of diesel fuel annually. At the price people in Atlantic Canada have to pay for energy, what does that do to the people of Newfoundland and their economy in terms of goods and services? Add to that the costs of this mindless nineteenth century idea of profit-taking in the public utility advocated by the Tory party and implemented by the Liberals, and one will then get some idea of what it will cost the people of Newfoundland if they allow these nineteenth century ideas as proposed by the party represented by the hon. member for St. John's West to continue.
Energy consumption by the railways is over 3 million gallons, and as I have said, the total increase in energy consumption will be 6,350,000 gallons if the railway were abandoned. The Sullivan report is nothing more than an endorsement of the user-pay principle. It is clearly at odds with the original commitments made by Canada to Newfoundland in 1949. Under the terms of the union, the federal government agreed to take over the Newfoundland railway, including steamship and other marine services, and to maintain those services in accordance with the traffic offering and also relieve the province of the public cost involved. The commission recommends that the Newfoundland government renegotiate the terms of union to permit railway abandonment. I hope a government formed by the Progressive Conservative party that advocates private enterprise and profit-taking in public transportation will depart from their out-moded principles and refuse to renegotiate the terms of union regarding their railway.
Historically governments have recognized that Newfoundland's geography and distance from markets called for government intervention by way of subsidies and regulations. There has been nothing new about that since the middle 1800s in Canada. It is not new on the prairies, the Atlantic, the north or on the Pacific coast. The terms of union recognized that situation by extending maritime freight rate subsidies to Newfoundland and requiring confederation to cover the losses of rail, ferry and coastal services.
I do wish that in 1949 the people of Newfoundland and their spokesmen could have been a little more foresighted. They should have included in the terms of union not only a way to cover losses but also a way to cover the total cost of refurbishing and rebuilding their rail system, and as well the improvement of the water transport system connecting the island to the mainland. It is ironic that the terms of union recognized this latter point, and by the way it was recognized in the case of the prairie provinces in the Crowsnest pass rates, as well as in the other Atlantic provinces with respect to maritime freight rate subsidies, and in northern Ontario through the bridge subsidies. It took into account climate, geography and demog-
November 27, 1978

raphy. The MacPherson commission was a royal commission of Conservatives appointed by a Conservative government in 1961. At that time Mr. MacPherson suggested:
-in the long run, a system can be developed that should enable the people concerned to pay the total cost involved.
While recognizing that at present user-pay could not be applied to Newfoundland, the Sullivan commission recommends:
-That it be recognized as a principle that in those areas where competition can viably exist, the transportation system be developed toward a future situation where the concept of user-pay may be appropriate and applicable.
This concept, as 1 have said, was started by a royal commission under a Tory government in 1961 and it has continued under a royal commission under a Liberal government. It betrays confederation. I do not want to hear another Tory speaker talk about user-pay, competition, free enterprise and profits when it comes to railroads or airlines. If the people are to be properly served with transportation in all parts of Canada, then the nineteenth century concepts they cling to have to be forgotten.
Nobody would argue in favour of subsidies just for the sake of a subsidy. Subsidies have to be applied to Newfoundland for a reason. Distances involved must be taken into account as well as the scattered population and the need to stimulate growth in a depressed region. Transportation is an essential element to accomplish this. Transportation must serve the people. Goods must be carried in a manner which meets the competition in markets in other parts of Canada and in other parts of the world. Subsidies to Newfoundland are not distortions. Government intervention in transportation is an instrument to counterbalance distortions that already exist, such as poverty, geography, climate and in the location of people.
The Sullivan commission does not view transportation as a tool to assist development. It views it as a way to get a government off the hook. It views it as a method to make a profit for somebody. The whole purport of the recommendation, starting with the first royal commission in 1961 under the Diefenbaker government and continued by a Pearson government and then a Trudeau government, is exemplified by what one sees today in transportation over the entire country. It is exemplified by what is being attempted in Newfoundland, not with or for Newfoundland.
I hope the House will decide at one minute to six to accept this motion. I hope members on the government side will realize that a notice of motion, which is really a resolution, even though passed by the House, places no requirement upon the government to implement it. But at least it will tell the government what all members in the House feel. Here is an opportunity to say something in an area that, while it might relate most directly to Newfoundland, also concerns many other areas in Canada including northern Ontario, the prairies, the Pacific coast and the Arctic. It would be an indication that parliament is saying to the government that the legislation, regulations and rules which now govern transportation do not work. We need only quote a former Liberal minister of transport who said that in transportation competition does not
Newfoundland Rail Transportation
work. It never has in Canada. There is not a single mode of transportation, including walking, which is not subsidized. If you were to follow the private enterprise mythology about competition and profit in transportation and the principle of user-pay, you would need to set up a toll booth every six blocks and charge the pedestrian either a 25 or 50-cent toll. The property owners have paid for the sidewalks. Therefore, in order to follow private enterprise logic to its conclusion in transportation, the pedestrians should pay.
If, Mr. Speaker, you were to suggest that profits should be made and there should be competition on our streets, highways and sewer and water systems, you would be locked up. Even the Tories and Liberals would not suggest that. They gave up on such things when they had toll roads and what-not back in the 1850s with private enterprise competition and road allowances. The same applies to railroads and airlines as well as other essential public services.
I urge the House to accept this resolution so that the government will be under no illusion that the adoption of this kind of royal commission recommendation would be counter to the whole intent and purpose of confederation. It would do nothing more than continue the colonizing of a part of our nation. If the government will agree to reject out of hand the Sullivan royal commission recommendations, it logically follows they will have to implement the recommendations of the Hall commission on freight rates in western Canada. They will have to implement recommendations of railway unions, farm organizations and small business organizations in this country that have been made over the past 50 years. Both the government and the official opposition will have to make a 180 degree turn in their ideology on transportation.
If the hon. member for St. John's West spends as much time persuading his own colleagues as he spent trying to persuade members opposite, he may even succeed in persuading parliament. I will be interested in seeing the policy that comes out of any Conservative party conference on transportation in Canada. I hope the hon. member for St. John's West extends his argument to some of his colleagues from Saskatchewan who over the past few weeks have said and done all they could to betray us with regard to transportation, orderly marketing and the wheat board. Instead they have patted Canadian Pacific on the head, even though it has bled this country for 90 years. They have done all they could to encourage and appiaud international bandits like the Cargill Grain Company-free enterprise-no matter what it does to our grain producers or this country. It does not matter to Tories what it does to fishermen in Newfoundland when you apply private enterprise principles in transportation.
I am delighted the hon. member for St. John's West has presented this resolution. I hope it means a fundamental change of heart on his part, if not on the part of his colleagues.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few minutes but I am not going to talk out the

November 27, 1978
Newfoundland Rail Transportation
resolution. I hope the Elouse will deal with it in a positive way. I just want to make a few remarks.
I commend to the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) that he sit down and read the Sullivan report. He obviously has not read it. Otherwise he would not ask the House to reject it out of hand.
Second, the government of Newfoundland has already rejected that recommendation dealing with rail abandonment. As the spokesman for the New Democratic Party, he should be acquainted with that fact. As a consequence of that rejection by the government of Newfoundland, the Government of Canada had no choice, given the fact that the terms of union, specifically term 31, requires Canada to continue to operate the Newfoundland railway. The Government of Canada had no choice but to accept the fact that they had a constitutional obligation to continue with the Newfoundland railway as represented by a statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) on September 13. Perhaps the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre should pick up on his homework.
Regardless of what the government of Newfoundland has done and regardless of what the Government of Canada through the Secretary of State for External Affairs has done, unless the Government of Canada is prepared to move very quickly, the constitution of Canada notwithstanding, there will be no railway in Newfoundland within 12 months. Unless there is a decision made now on the operating losses, abandonment of the railway will become a de facto situation, the constitution notwithstanding. The Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) know that. It is nothing short of scandalous that they avoid making this ultimate decision.
The people of Newfoundland are getting sick and tired of being looked upon as a foster child of confederation and a foster child of Canadian National. Instead, they want to be and expect to be looked upon by the Government of Canada as a partner in the development of the last great frontier of this country, namely the province of Newfoundland and Labrador with its tremendous storehouse of wealth. In order to develop that resource, we need a new approach to transportation.
I urge the Government of Canada to move very quickly before it is too late. I commend my colleague from St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) on bringing forward this motion which I know will address itself to the House, because the Government of Canada has responded to it in a positive way since it has been placed on the order paper.


Mr. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, let me address my first comments to the New Democratic Party and follow up on what was said by my colleague from St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). I know they are flushed with success, but let me say this to them. If you want to win more seats, do your homework first. You have just rejected out of hand the concept of Port Labrador, the transLabrador highway, the development of airstrips along the Labrador coast and the interprovincial ferry service that is to

be established in the province. You have rejected all of those because you have rejected all of the recommendations of the Sullivan commission. If you want to win more seats, do your homework first, because the people are not going to buy that line.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member has a real point of order, I am ready to hear it. However, it is six o'clock.


Bill Rompkey: We have not got time for points of order. They had their day in court.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, the hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has expired. I therefore leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion (Miss Begin) that Bill C-2 be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, when I completed the first part of my speech at five o'clock I was dealing with the extent and effect of the cuts in funding affecting scientific research in general and research in the field of medicine in particular. I want to put on record what the cuts announced in September mean to medical research in this country.
In the Department of National Health and Welfare the total science support cutback for 1978-79 amounts to $10.3 million. It includes $3 million for the professional training program which was used for the upgrading of health personnel and about which the minister spoke so glowingly, and $4.8 million in programs for research into the non-medical use of drugs. The use of drugs is increasing. The complexity of the drugs being taken is growing and the effect of drugs in such important aspects of life as mind control can probably be seen in the tragedy which occurred at Jonestown some days ago.
November 27, 1978

The amount of $2 million has been cut from the national health research and development program, besides $500,000 from the research budget of the Medical Research Council. We are talking about the kind of stop-go decisions which this government has been making over a period of almost ten years and which in the view of researchers, medical researchers in particular, constitute a disaster. Each time this sort of thing happens it is an indication, almost an order, for some of our youngest and best medical researchers to take off for the United States where they consistently spend not just ten times the amount on medical research one might expect, since the population there is ten times that of ours, but probably one hundred times what we spend. In other words, they spend $10 per capita on medical research for every $1 we spend here. The result is that the discoveries are made in the United States and we become captives of the American market.
Then the research budget of the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Gillespie) is $1.8 million; $1 million has been cut from the National Research Council and $500,000 from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council. The National Research Council has a worldwide reputation for the excellence of its work, but if this reputation is maintained no thanks will be due to the government. The effects of what the government has done and is doing will be seen not just this year or next year but in the decade and the generation to come.
It is an amazing set of decisions the government has made. In view of our high unemployment and poor balance of trade record, and the overwhelming evidence from other countries of the benefits of a strong research and development effort, these cutback proposals make no sense at all. Research is a labourintensive activity which employs people in each of our provinces and, dollar for dollar, yields high dividends by comparison with other work.
In his announcement last June the then minister of science and technology said that he was aiming in five years to spend 1.5 per cent of the gross national product on scientific research and development. More than half of that which other western countries are spending has already been cut in Canada in scientific research in the announcements I have already listed.
A particularly disturbing feature of the proposed federal cutbacks in research, health care and education programs is that now the responsibility for continuation of support for work in these areas could fall very heavily on the already financially beleaguered provinces. Although the established programs financing agreement requires the federal government to obtain provincial consent for any action that reduces or diminishes Ottawa's contribution, the announcement on September 8 shows that the Government of Canada intends substantially to reduce payments to these cost-shared programs, probably by cutting cash payments rather than through transfer of tax points.
The effect of any major federal withdrawal may be offset somewhat through equalization grants, but in the final analysis
Health Resources Fund Act
there is no guarantee that the less affluent provinces especially could afford to assume the high cost of funding research, health care and education on their own.
The minister suggested in her speech that since 85 per cent or 88 per cent of the money allocated under the legislation in 1966 had been used, the needs of the provinces had been met. Nothing could be further from the truth. In my own province there is approximately $8.5 million which has not been used, despite the fact that our largest teaching hospital, the Health Sciences Centre, urgently requires modification. That hospital is short of teaching staff, emergency care and laboratory care facilities. It is in need of advanced diagnostic laboratories and of upgrading in its child health facilities.


Monique Bégin: Did you say the Seven Oaks Hospital?


David Orlikow: I am talking about the Health Sciences Centre. The psychiatric facilities in that hospital are a disgrace. The minister may think that I have exaggerated the situation. The former head of medicine at the Health Sciences Centre, Dr. Reuben Cherniack, a nationally known researcher, left Winnipeg for the United States because of the lack of opportunity and facilities in that hospital. He is quoted in an article in the Winnipeg Tribune, July 5, 1978 as saying:
A chronic shortage of research facilities, coupled with a negative attitude toward research, has reduced the Health Sciences Centre to a second-rate community hospital and forced the University of Manitoba medical school downhill-
Further on in the same article he says:
-research uncovers new methods of approach, new methods of treating disease which are then applied to patients in the hospital.
But more important is these researchers developed labs that quickly became applicable to the patient. That isn't happening now.
The researchers are getting frustrated (by the attitude), their students are getting turned off. The future researcher is not going to be turned on.
A news story in the Winnipeg Free Press of last Saturday reports on a letter of protest that was sent to the minister of health in the Manitoba government, Mr. Sherman, by the former president of the Manitoba Medical Association, Dr. J. H. Crust, who protested vigorously about the fact that in the hospital in which he works, the Misericordia Hospital, seriously ill patients are denied beds because there are none available. In another story Dr. Crust talked of a patient of his who needed an operation and was left in the corridor in the emergency ward for 24 hours.
The story would be amusing if it were not so sad. The organized medical profession in Manitoba worked so hard to defeat the NDP government because they thought that it was unsympathetic to the medical profession and health care, only to find that the present Conservative government is no better.
The minister said today that the situation was not that bad in the field of medical research and tried to create the impression that the medical research community was relatively satisfied with the state of research and the support which it is getting from the federal government. I have a news clipping from the Ottawa Citizen dated October 18, 1978, which reports a speech the minister made at a meeting arranged by

November 27, 1978
Health Resources Fund Act
an organization called Canadians for Health Research. It reads:
'I know you were hoping that I have been able to bring you an announcement that there would be increased funding made available and I wish I could have done that today, but regrettably I cannot do that'-
She stressed that while the $2 billion budget cutback hurt and meant a real 'tightening of the belt in government,' medical research would not be 'put on the back burner until our other economic difficulties go away'-
Further on the same article says:
"But the commitment that I want to make to you is that, even in a time of cutbacks and restraint, funding for medical research will be protected and will grow at least within the guidelines which the federal government has set to control its own growth."
The question is, do medical researchers accept the guidelines established by the government as being adequate? I suggest that they do not and that they have not for a long time. A letter written to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on March 1, 1976, by Dr. Victor Chernik, Professor and head of the Department of Pediatrics, and pediatrician-in-chief at the Children's Centre at the University of Manitoba, illustrates the current situation in medical research. It reads:
The level of funding for medical research in Canada on a per capita basis is approximately $2.00... while that in the United States is approximately ten times this rate. Thus, we are in danger of losing our best people, scientists who would compete very favourably in the U.S. funding arena.
In the last paragraph of his letter the doctor says:
In my own department there are several excellent investigators who have had to curtail excellent research programs in the diseases of children and several other young but very promising scientists who have not been able to get their programs off the ground because of serious lack of funding of the MRC. I submit that if the current policy of the Government of Canada is not altered medical research in the country will within the next three to four years be in serious jeopardy because of a lack of highly skilled and trained technical help, a major decline in the number of research trainees and the emigration of skilled scientists to areas which have a more stable funding base and are therefore more conducive to medical research.
The fears of Dr. Chernick have proven to be well founded because all the things he predicted have happened.
I have another article from the Winnipeg Tribune, dated April 28, 1977, which outlines the problems of medical research in my province. Manitoba is far from being the worst province in this area. This article reads:
What is lacking in this province, as in others, is money-money to attract high calibre people to Manitoba to perform research, teaching, and patient care functions, and to sponsor projects initiated by residents of the province.
It goes on to say:
Manitoba researchers reacted to the decision with alarm-
That is to the cutback at the time.
-noting that their purchasing power was cut by 35 to 40 per cent. Several research projects were scrapped and 38 research technicians in Manitoba lost their jobs.
There are probably another 28 who will lose their jobs this year. Let me bring the story up to the present. I have here a letter written to me on May 1 of this year from Dr. R. W. Hudson, secretary, research committee of the faculty of medicine of the University of Ottawa. In that letter he says in part:

The research committee of the faculty of medicine of the University of Ottawa feels impelled to make a public statement to the effect that:
1.	A crisis exists in medical and health related research in this country as a result of government funding policies.
2.	Long-term effects on medical research will, in turn, seriously affect health care delivery in Canada and the effect will be with us for many years to come.
3.	Over the last five years the government has failed to respond appropriately to representations by many groups from within the field of health care, as well as by those from outside.
It is clear that the present government must take full responsibility for the present crisis and for the consequences that follow.
Last but not least, I have a letter sent to me by Dr. Cinader from the Institute of Immunology, the school of graduate studies of the University of Toronto. He applied for a grant for a project entitled, "Geriatric changes of the immune system," and he received a reply from R. A. Heacock, director, contributions and awards division of the research programs directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare, which reads as follows:
As you have probably heard by now, the current series of expenditure cuts by the federal government will mean that the allotment of funds for the national health research and development program has been reduced by $2 million for the fiscal year 1979-80.
Having reviewed our budgetary commitments for the next fiscal year, it appears that in all probability no funds will be available to support any new projects and awards in 1979-80.
Dr. Cinader wrote to me. He is not complaining for himself because he is an established researcher who has access to other sources of funds, especially from the United States. He wrote to me on November 15 because he knows from past experience that I have been interested and involved in these discussions. His letter reads in part:
The recent decision that cuts of $2 million are to be made in external grants, given by National Health and Welfare (NHRDP), is a regrettable consequence of the current fiscal policies of the Canadian government. We are informed that the minister has decided to discontinue to consider newly proposed projects in 1978 and in the normal review period of 1979.
This will further increase the harmful long-term consequences of the scientific basis of our health services. When cuts are made, they must be carefully designed so as to protect the most valuable and original aspects of research, and must not occur at the expense of new progressive concepts. In short, it must preserve the capacity for recovery, when, finally, better funding has become possible and the tragically wasteful stop-go-stop technique of science funding has come to an end.
I do not have the time to put the whole letter on the record, but it is clear how Dr. Cinader, who is just one of the many adversely affected-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Orlikow: I do not intend to be very long, Mr. Speaker. I could go on quoting from any number of sources in the scientific community, but I know that the minister knows that the decision made by the government-and I hope forced on her against her better judgment-is not acceptable to the scientific community. In every sector of the scientific commu-
November 27, 1978

nity in every province people are dismayed, in fact they are completely disheartened, at this government's intolerable view that scientific research is not really necessary, and that when cuts are made they can be made easily, without too much difficulty, without too much protest and without too many ill effects in the field of scientific research. It is a position with which most of us disagree, certainly one with which people in all the scientific disciplines in this country disagree. It is one more illustration of this government's failure to understand the role of government and the need to invest not less but indeed greater efforts, many more people and much more money in all fields of scientific research.
This bill is just one more example of the government's failure to understand the needs of the Canadian people, one more illustration of the decision of the government to impose restraint without thinking through the consequences on what those cutbacks mean to people and to their needs. It is such a serious mistake and failure on the part of this government that we in the NDP cannot and will not support the proposal contained in this bill.


Mr. Hal Herbert (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to address a few words to the House on this bill, but before I do so 1 want to make a few points of clarification regarding some of the remarks of the last speaker.
First of all, no submission for medical or hospital research has been refused by the department. Second, all agreements that have been signed will be honoured. At present, 85 per cent of the funds set up for this purpose have been utilized. It is obviously false to criticize this bill in an attempt to promote medical research.
Having said that, may I say a few words about the bill itself. A royal commission on health services, commonly known as the Hall commission, was established in the early 1960s at the urging of the Canadian Medical Association. The association, encouraged by the success of physician-sponsored service plans, felt that the "supplement not supplant" philosophy of public funding of medical care insurance for low income groups only would find support. However, after carefully conducting the most thorough and complete survey of the health situtation in Canada so far undertaken, the commission came out strongly in favour of a shared-cost program parallel to the hospital insurance program; in other words, a universal and government operated medicare program.
The medical care program which was implemented in 1968 was based on the 1964 recommendations of the royal commission on health services. It is important to look at some of the significant factors that led to its recommendations.
During the mid-1960s when the program was being considered, Canada was one of the few industrial nations without a national medical care insurance program. Although universally available plans existed in a few provinces, in most provinces there were Canadians who found it impossible to buy protection against the cost of medical care. In some cases this was due to ill health or age, with no insurance company willing
Health Resources Fund Act
to take the increased risk associated with issuing a policy. In other cases, individuals who were not members of an insurance group could not afford the higher premiums required for individual enrolment. It was only in those few provinces which embarked upon the governmental prepaid medical insurance plan, pioneered in Saskatchewan in 1962, that any resident who was not a member of an insurance group could with certainty buy comprehensive coverage without producing evidence of being a good risk, and without the possibility of being asked to pay a higher premium.
I should like to interject a very personal note at this point. I was in that position myself. Because of certain conditions and situations, I was the father of a family which was subject to sickness in the household day after day, week after week, month after month. Because I had not been enrolled previously in any assistance plan, it was impossible for me to obtain the necessary coverage. Debts accumulated, and every time a member of my family had to enter hospital, the debts increased. I found myself in an extraordinary situation. I was running out of any method by which to pay my bills. I had gone to the bank and finance companies. I was paying a tremendous interest rate of 18 per cent per annum on the money I was borrowing. I was in hock up to my eyebrows.


An hon. Member:: What does this have to do with the bill?


Harold Thomas Herbert: I am pointing out how essential it was for the government to introduce a universal plan, so that persons experiencing extremely difficult financial conditions would be covered, despite the fact that no insurance company would touch cases similar to my own.
At the end of 1967, approximately 70 per cent of Canada's population was estimated to have some insurance protection against the cost of necessary medical care under voluntary plans. Eventually I was able to participate in one of those voluntary plans, but by then I had debts which I thought would never be repaid. An additional 4 per cent to 5 per cent were covered under a compulsory insurance plan in Saskatchewan, while others came under a variety of public programs for categorical assistance in receiving medical care. However, it should be noted that the Hall commission in 1964 reported that of those many Canadians who had private medical insurance, approximately 30 per cent had very inadequate coverage.
What benefits do we perceive from hospital insurance and medical care programs? The most obvious effect has been the removal of financial barriers to necessary medical, hospital and medical practitioner care for all residents of Canada. Again I should like to refer to my personal situation. Look at the embarrassment I faced when talking to a doctor who had performed a very expensive operation. I had to say to him, "Doctor, I have no way of paying your bill. I have borrowed to the limit." He said, "I will be sending you a bill. It will be a relatively small one. Pay it when you are able."
Ill health no longer means that families face crushing financial burdens related to costs, in addition to other misfor-

November 27, 1978
Health Resources Fund Act
tunes. Surely when one has sickness to contend with repeatedly, one should not also have to face financial concerns respecting the buying of one's daily bread.
The benefit of a medical care plan must be self-evident, but if proof is needed I should like to mention the 84 per cent to 88 per cent of the respondents in relatively recent Gallup polls who felt that they were receiving good value from health insurance, which topped the list of government finance services mentioned in the polls. The introduction of medical care programs meant that medical practice has become economically viable in any community with sufficient population to warrant a doctor, because of the virtual elimination of bad debts for medical practitioners. In itself this is a means of encouraging practice in areas where populations could not previously maintain an economically viable practice.
Once again, I should like to refer to a very personal experience. When my wife entered training school for nursing, she borrowed money from the provincial government, on the condition that either she repaid the loan or went to work in one of the areas where doctors would not go because the population was not particularly large, or because the population had no means of paying the doctor's bills. When my wife graduated from nursing school, she went to Baie Johan Beetz and spent a considerable amount of time there. She got to love the people of that community. As a newly graduated nurse, she did all the work one thinks of being performed by a doctor: delivery of babies, various kinds of minor surgery and extraction of teeth. These are the things one has to do when a community is completely cut off from the rest of the world for a period of several months, when there is no communication of any kind, other than that which can be dropped by aeroplane. There is no way of getting out and there is no way of getting in.
That is the type of medical service which was available to this community in the years prior to the introduction of a medical care program. The men and women who went into these areas certainly did not do so for financial gain. It was a tremendous strain on the individual concerned because most of them were young, enthusiastic, and had relatively little experience. They were called upon to perform some incredible tasks when helping with the problems of communities such as Baie Johan Beetz.
In addition to such general economic inducements resulting from the advent of the medical care program, the federal government contributed toward provincial monetary incentives to encourage physicians to establish in underserviced areas, such as the one I have mentioned. Obviously, those are areas where financial encouragement must be given in order to have the kind of medical service which is essential and necessary.
Every day we hear how bad things are in Canada, when really things could not be any better than they are at the present time compared to conditions in the rest of the world. We have more doctors per capita than any other country. We have extraordinary medical services. Any member of our population can go to hospital next week without having to worry about the bill. It is extraordinary that there should be objections to the kind of assistance which has meant that we

are able to send some of our surplus doctors into areas, where there has not been viable business for doctors in the past. In these small communities, not only was there no means by which a physician could be paid, but the gratitude of the people was often shown in some unusual fashion. For example, in my wife's case, she would receive jars of pickled fish, and all kinds of things which were quite precious in a community like that, as compensation for the services she performed.
As well as encouraging physicians to reside and practise away from metropolitan centres-who would not practise in a metropolitan centre today, and one of our problems is to get people away from these metropolitan centres-the medical care program has helped stimulate visiting specialist services for smaller communities. Once again, we talk about specialist services. Imagine being in an area where, not very long ago, it was not a question of getting a specialist's services but rather a question of whether you could get a doctor's services at all. This program brings these specialists to towns whose population is such, that they could not attract these specialists on a full-time basis. Of course, to the extent these services are going into areas not provided for previously, there is some associated increase in costs. But in a country as vast as ours, we feel dollars are well spent when they lessen disparity by bringing about better distribution of skilled human resources. We all know that one of the problems of the program-abuses, if you like-is that people in metropolitan areas are able to shop around, often from doctor to doctor, and draw on the expertise of the many specialists in those areas.
Canada has also experienced some dramatic improvements in certain health indicators. At the time our hospital insurance program came in, in the late 1950s, our infant mortality rate was more than 40 per cent higher than that of Australia, 30 per cent higher than that of England and Wales, and nearly 20 per cent higher than that of the United States. By the end of 1971, which was the first year that all provinces were in medicare for the full year, our infant mortality rate had dropped from 21.8 per 100,000 live births to 14.3, still equalling Australia's but surpassing that of the United Kingdom and New Zealand. In 1975 the Canadian rate was 11 per cent below that in the United States.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) wishes to rise on a point of order.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, it seems that the hon. member who has the floor has made an error in regard to the bill we are discussing. The bill before the House at the moment relates to the health resources fund, not medicare. It seems the hon. member either does not know the difference or has picked the wrong speech.


An hon. Member:: Or is filibustering.


Harold Thomas Herbert: opposition who chose to use this bill for a discussion of this specific subject. It is my opinion that what I am attempting to do is respond to the points which have been made by various speakers from the opposition benches.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harold Thomas Herbert: The maternal mortality rate on the eve of medicare was 27 per 100,000 live births. Incidentally, I was going to mention before I was so rudely interrupted by an hon. member opposite that one of the reasons for the mortality rate in days when we did not have a proper program was that in outlying communities more often than not-sometimes the percentage was as high as 75 per cent-the birth was not normal and required expertise. Often the people in those small communities were left with an inexperienced nurse who had to cope with some extraordinary problems.
The maternal mortality rate dropped a third by the end of 1971, and by 1976 was seven per 100,000. It is noted in some studies on the effects of implementing medicare that pregnant women were starting their prenatal care earlier than they had been doing before medicare. One presumes that, if prenatal care is of any value to the mother as well as to the baby, this earlier start of prenatal care may very well have had something to do with this marked drop in the maternal mortality rate.
Incidentally, I guess it goes without saying that if we can improve the facilities available to the mother at the time of birth, we are going to eliminate many of the problems encountered with all kinds of retardation in later life due to the inadequacy that used to exist in the facilities available at the time of birth.
I am not prepared to suggest that the improvements in maternal and infant mortality rates in the last ten years have been entirely due to medicare. However, it seems almost impossible to conceive that the tremendous change in the access to doctors, both physical and financial, since the introduction of medical insurance did not play some part.
With an increasing output from Canadian medical schools, Canada's doctor-population ratio is better than one in 600. We should be very proud of that. It has passed the target which the Hall commission despaired of reaching before 1991. As I mentioned a little earlier, I think we should sometimes talk about some of the good things in this country instead of always talking about the gloomy side.
All provinces have experienced a substantial improvement in their doctor-population ratios. Some changes have been especially gratifying. For example, the doctor-population ratio of Newfoundland, one of our less fortunate provinces economically, increased from one in 1,500 the year before medicare to almost one in 700, eight years after it joined medicare. As well as the improvement in the doctor supply over-all, more of the province's practitioners are settling in smaller communities. The increased supply of physicians and other health manpower relates to the significant impetus of the health resources fund established in 1966 which was complementary to the hospital insurance and medicare programs.
Health Resources Fund Act
I felt it was essential, despite the interruptions by members of the opposition, to put on record some of the accomplishments, and some of the necessary responses to points raised by members of the opposition during this debate, points I might say that did not relate at all to the bill but which required some response. I have been very happy to do that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I do not usually start my speeches in this way but, in respect of a matter as important as this relating to the health resources fund, I do not understand how the government, following the minister's introduction of the bill, could follow with a speaker who carried on for 35 minutes without addressing himself for one minute to the bill. He delivered a speech that had nothing whatever to do with the bill. We across here have been incredulous. The hon. member suggests that he answered our points one by one. Now the hon. member smiles. I do not think it is all that funny that an hon. member opposite should speak on this bill without addressing himself to its subject matter, namely, the health resources fund. I think even the minister is embarrassed.


Monique Bégin: No, not at all.


William Heward Grafftey: She will have to stretch her imagination very far because she knows she will have to do a lot of convincing to convince me and others that the hon. member who preceded me addressed himself for more than 30 seconds to this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Heward Grafftey: The hon. member did mention that in comparison with other countries we do have a very good doctor-population ratio. I have recognized this in the past as a result of research I have undertaken over many years. The one difficulty is, there is a bad distribution of doctors. We have an over-concentration of doctors in some of our high income urban areas.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


William Heward Grafftey: I think that hon. member should really leave the House. He has just disgraced himself with an irrelevant speech.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Heward Grafftey: I am not joking about that. We have more to do than listen to that kind of speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I would suggest that the hon. member get back to the bill.


William Heward Grafftey: I am right on the bill, Mr. Speaker. When we talk about the doctor-population ratio, we in this House recognize that the ratio in this country is pretty good. I think that the hon. minister would be one of the first to admit that in

November 27, 1978
Health Resources Fund Act
many, many areas of this country we are talking about poor distribution of doctors. There are many low income areas, rural areas and small towns going without doctors and paramedical help. It is not good enough just to quote the ratio of doctors in comparison to other countries.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) related this question to the debate on restraint that has been taking place during this parliament. Mr. Speaker, I want to go on record as saying that I support the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) and my leader in their position on restraint but surely we should be selective. I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North is drawing a very long bow when he says that every time the government brings in a measure that means cutting back, this party criticizes them. That is not so, Mr. Speaker. We are going to be responsible and selective and we are going to talk about the health resources fund with that in view.
In direct relation to the health resources fund I want to draw an analogy. Let us suppose that at nine o'clock tomorrow morning the government decided that it would be public policy that everybody in Canada should have free bread and we vote a supplementation into their pockets so that the people could have free bread, but nobody in the government told the bakeries what we had done. The government knows full well that in terms of medicare and hospital insurance they had the full support of this party. Although we had some misgivings about how things were done, we voted income supplementation into people's pockets for services and personnel that for many Canadians were not available. Costs skyrocketed and the system broke down. In many ways what we did was analogous to my story about a country voting free bread, voting supplemental income into people's pockets but doing nothing about notifying the bakeries.
We had the Hall report in Ontario, in Quebec the Caston-guay report, and also the royal commission on the Healing Arts in Ontario, all of which said that whether we like it or not, whether it was forced on the provinces by unilateral federal decision or not, the fact is we have hospital insurance and medicare. Next came the establishment of the health resources fund which the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) dealt with in great detail in his remarks today.
I hope the hon. member for Winnipeg North will pay attention to what I have to say. I researched the Hall commission findings, and the royal commission on the Healing Arts findings in the mid sixties when these commissions addressed themselves to the problems of medical financing, medical research, medicare and hospital insurance, and they said the health resources fund should be established not only for proper planning of personnel at the local level, but, in effect, to reduce costs.
I challenge the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) to research back to the mid-1960s. The health resources fund in relation to health research-which I shall touch on later and which the hon. member for Athabasca

brought up in a responsible way this afternoon-was initiated to help plan the provision of paramedical personnel, to train more doctors, to work in co-operation with medical schools and to work at the community level in terms of rationalization plants and health care to people at the community level.
If the hon. minister were to read all the recommendations emanating from the Hall report in Ontario, the Quebec report and all the studies, she would find that one of the central recommendations for the establishment of a health resources fund was spending dollars in order to save dollars in the long run.
What a ludicrous display of lunacy we see on the floor of the House of Commons today, Mr. Speaker. The federal government, like a bull in a china shop, cuts back on a fund, one of the main reasons for which is to save money. Hon. members opposite laugh but they have not studied the bill. They are just voting automatically with the government. What happens is that Treasury Board takes a wide view, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) says, "We are going to have to cut back," and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) says, "Restraint!"
I was once parliamentary secretary to a minister of finance, although it seems long, long ago. But I know that when you look at all the statutory items you can touch, there are not many you can logically cut back on. Treasury Board officials-and I challenge the Minister of National Health and Welfare to deny this-say, "Here is something we can touch- the health resources fund."


Monique Bégin: That is not true.


William Heward Grafftey: They say, "That is not a statutory consideration," and so the bureaucrats, aided and abetted by their Liberal counterparts opposite, decide to cut the health resources fund. They do it without any idea of what they are cutting. I ask the minister if she denies that one of the aims of the health resources fund in the mid-sixties-apart from the humanitarian aims-was to save money, to put the plant and personnel in place in co-operation with the provinces, as the long-term $500 million was voted. Was not one of the central reasons for the health resources fund to save money in the long run? Today, in a crisis situation, the government is trying to give the Canadian people the impression that they are going to save a few dollars when in the long run it is actually going to cost millions.
I should like to summarize what the hon. member for Athabasca, this party's spokesman for health, so ably articulated earlier today. The federal government's health resources fund was created in 1966 to help provide money to meet the capital costs of constructing, renovating, acquiring and equipping health training and research facilities. For these purposes, $500 million was made available for use over a 15-year period. The fund was to pay up to 50 per cent of the cost, the rest to be provided by the provinces or some other source.
In December, 1967, things got off to a bad start. The minister of finance at that time, Mr. Mitchell Sharp, announced that he would seek to limit the total fund allocation
November 27, 1978

in the next fiscal year to $40 million. In fact, the total actually approved was $37.5 million. The same limitation was applied for the fiscal year 1969-70.
This change in rules in midstream caused chaos in the program ten years ago. In the first nine months of the fund, from July 31, 1966 to March 31, 1967, federal-provincial health officials agreed that $14.9 million should be given to various projects, but only $4.7 million was actually paid out by March 31, 1967, because of the federal government's intransigence. In the following fiscal year another $66.3 million was committed. Again because of the federal government's intransigence, the total payment was $32.6 million. That is how the fund got off the ground.
This on-again-off-again attitude of the federal government, aided and abetted by Treasury Board officials who cut into areas where they did not know what they were cutting, has created chaos when the object was to bring stability to the whole area. I say that Ottawa is slashing the health resources fund. I said this over ten years ago and I say it again today. This has had an alarming effect.
Let me talk for a few minutes about what the Castonguay report had to say indirectly about the province of Quebec vis-a-vis the health resources fund. The province of Quebec and the Castonguay commission typify only too well the Canadian scene vis-a-vis the delivery of medical and health care services, and indirectly the application of the health resources fund. Over 12 years ago the report concluded that regional planning was a number one priority in any progressive public medicare plan. Castonguay specifically recognized, as I said at the outset of my speech, that income supplementation through the hospital insurance plan and medicare was being voted into people's pockets for medical personnel and services that many times were not there, especially in low income and small town rural areas of this country.
The health resources fund not only had to address itself to this humanitarian difficulty but it had to address itself also to the cost spiral. At the centre of each region should be found a large health training centre with university affiliation, together with a large teaching hospital which should include all the highly specialized services, the report concluded. Decentralized from this large unit, often to be founded in smaller towns, cities and suburbs, the Castonguay commission recommended the establishment of general hospitals. I am now talking more particularly of the province of Quebec. These hospitals were to have over 200 beds for general surgery and specialized functions could be performed. Further decentralization as recommended by the Castonguay report should see the establishment of hospitals for the care of chronic diseases, old people's and nursing homes, ambulatory care centres, convalescent homes, health care clinics and so on.
When this bill passed the House, Ottawa obliged the provinces by allowing them to participate in a universal medicare plan, a hospital insurance plan, but we are voting again today meaningless sums to help make ready the facilities and person-
Health Resources Fund Act
nel needed under programs that were voted on over ten years ago. Quebec is no exception, Mr. Speaker. I address myself particularly to the minister right now when I say that regions all over Canada have embarked on medicare programs before services were initially prepared, and still the government is doing nothing in co-operation with the provinces to rectify the situation. I say that if this government persists in its attitude of pretending to save short-term dollars at the expense of longterm chaos, no one knows what the results will be.
How many times did the minister have her say with Treasury Board officials before this ludicrous cutback took place? Can she convince this House during this debate that Treasury Board officials who recommended this cutback have any idea at all what the program is about?
Apart from the humanitarian aspect of needing to implement the plan at the community level in terms of building ambulatory care facilities, convalescent homes and the like, as well as the training of paramedical personnel to take the place of high cost doctors, if the minister had really pleaded her case with the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board officials she would have shown them how, in the long-term, short-term cutbacks will cost the Canadian taxpayer a lot more.
The case for medical research has already been made a lot better than 1 could make it in the few short minutes available to me tonight. Surely it is self-evident. For the last ten years we have heard about the exodus of research scientists leaving Canada for the United States. I do not want to get into that almost sterile debate because it should be self-evident. Again, I refer to the humanitarian factor. How can one put a cost on scientific research? I think of Dr. Wilder Penfield in the Montreal Neurological Research Institute. How can one possibly put a cost on the millions of dollars, again apart from the humanitarian considerations, that he has saved the Canadian taxpayer by his work at one of the world's greatest neurological institutions? How can one put a cost on what my old schoolmate, Charlie Scriver in Montreal, is doing? I single him out, but there are many others. How can one put a cost on what Banting and Best did in terms of scientific research, and how much they saved the Canadian taxpayer? In this respect we could go back to the fifteenth century.
I think hon. members opposite should treat this debate a little more seriously than they are. We all realize the excellence of the delivery of medical and health care services at the community level, and the excellence of our teaching facilities at universities which depend on the excellence of our scientific establishment. How many times do we have to tell successive ministers of health and welfare this? We have documented it and documented it to the extent that I will not document it again tonight.
Canada is spending per capita a good deal less on medical research than the U.K. and the United States are spending. Of all the false economies-and now I address myself to the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: It is Winnipeg North Centre.

November 27, 1978
Health Resources Fund Act


William Heward Grafftey: Winnipeg North. The hon. member criticized us for criticizing the minister's position, and now like us he is going to vote against this proposition.


René Bégin: How do you vote on it?


William Heward Grafftey: If the minister thinks we will support her lunacy in this bill, she will be sadly disillusioned. 1 am sure the hon. minister is not really angry at us; she is probably angry at her own colleagues. If the hon. minister could relax and take off her partisan hat, she could tell us that she is a lot more annoyed with her own colleagues than she is with us. By cutting back on medical research the hon. lady is helping to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. How often-and I will repeat this as often as it takes for the minister to get a feeling for the proposition-have we been told the excellence of our whole delivery system of health care at the community level and the excellence of our teaching in medical schools depends on a well integrated and well financed research establishment here in Canada?
The minister might convince herself for partisan reasons that it does not matter much. However, she will not convince those on this side that this short-term cutback, apart from its humanitarian folly, is not going to cost the Canadian taxpayer in the long run millions and millions of wasted dollars. It is incredible that a government can find millions of dollars to buy Nordair, and can satisfy its quasi-doctrinaire propensities and go out and buy Pacific Petroleums-


An hon. Member:: It hasn't yet.


William Heward Grafftey: Well, it is on the way.


Mr. Andres:: Stick to the bill.


William Heward Grafftey: 
William Heward Grafftey: The minister is so blindly partisan she just sits and groans. Can she deny what I said? The government is cutting back on medical research and the health resources fund, something in which my socialist friends to my left would be interested. Simultaneously, this government finds the money to buy Pacific Petroleums and Nordair.
I hope before this debate ends that the minister can convince us that, if she has not already done so, she will take her case to Treasury Board and do a little rethinking. I will bet my bottom dollar that she really has not pleaded the case with Treasury Board. With the way this government has balled things up, the minister would not have had a chance to plead the case. I am

sure it was done unilaterally without her knowledge. We in the official opposition would like to think that before this debate is over the hon. lady will do a bit of reconsidering.
As I said at the outset of the debate, our position on restraint is very clear; we are being selective.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Heward Grafftey: You know where we stand on this issue.


Mr. Breau:: We want to hear it again.


William Heward Grafftey: You were not in the House when our critic made his lead speech this afternoon. It was made abundantly clear.


An hon. Member:: We would like to hear it again.


William Heward Grafftey: I am sure you would. I am not sure the minister would like to be closeted for very long with the leading minds of the medical health care scientific community whom this government is letting down.
What I have tried to put forward today is the historical fact of this government bringing in medicare and hospital insurance, supported in substance by members on this side. The vote is very clear. We in the federal authority imposed this on the provinces. I remember the debates. I hope members opposite remember them.
Intrinsic in the whole matter of the health resources fund was that it was incumbent upon us to work in a long-term way with the provinces. We were to make ready the plan, the personnel and update the scientific community to ensure that we were not just voting into people's pockets income supplementation for services and personnel that were not there.
It was a 15-year plan. Five hundred million dollars was voted. Because it was a non-statutory item, the finance minister of the day, aided and abetted by Treasury Board, even before the plan got off the drawing board in the sixties cut back. Today we are doing the same thing. The government may be penny wise, but they are pound foolish in this regard.
I ask members opposite not to automatically vote with the minister on this. Study what the health resources fund is all about. If they do that in clear conscience, they will not support this government. This will just lead to chaos. What is it doing to federal-provincial relations? How can a provincial health and welfare minister set out long-term goals in terms of putting paramedical people in place and in terms of community hospital planning? What should a provincial authority, with its plant ready to go, do when all of a sudden, out of the blue, without any warning it is unilaterally cut off by a federal government that has mismanaged the economy and wasted money?
This government has been the most wasteful administration since confederation. It has brought this country to its economic knees with its waste. What does it do in a crisis? It cuts back on health resources. I say to members opposite that if they
November 27, 1978

support the hon. lady in this folly, it will be another nail in their coffin at the time of the next election.
Before a vote is taken on this measure, I plead with backbenchers opposite to be a little less jocular and to do a little research on the raison d'etre of the health resources fund in terms of what it was meant to do, not only with regard to putting the plant and personnel together but in terms of control and cost. I will then be very surprised if they do not join with us on this side of the House in voting down the absolutely iniquitous measure proposed by the hon. lady today.
[ Translation]


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have something to say to my colleague the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey).

The item under discussion today is the health resources fund. The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) says that we should research all of the data so that we can make an intelligent decision. I propose to put before hon. members some of the facts which I believe will be helpful in making up their minds as to how they should vote on this particular bill. When the debate is over, if these facts do not agree I ask them to bring them up for debate so that we can look at them. Indeed, I have done my research on this bill.
In order better to understand the proposed amendment before us, I will refer to other programs having significant linkages to it in the past and currently. In the postwar period, significant impetus was given to the improvement of health care and services with the introduction in 1948 of the federal general health grants program to which the hon. member referred early in his speech. These grants had been referred to and described as "fundamental prerequisites of a nation-wide system of health insurance". This meant that the whole nation was going to be covered as equally as possible in a health scheme so that all Canadian citizens would have the best care and protection we could provide as a nation.
The objective has not changed. This bill will not be detrimental to the original concept of 1948. These grants provided financial support to the provinces for the development and expansion of public health services intended to prevent illness and disability, as well as to control tuberculosis, polio, measles and other communicable diseases; for the detection and early treatment of mental illness; for the improvement of health services for mothers and children; for the early detection and treatment of cancer; for the rehabilitation of the disabled; and finally, for research into problem areas. This is what we have been doing and what we are doing today. This work will in no way be detrimentally affected because of the bill before us.
Health Resources Fund Act
These grants also contributed to provincial health surveys of health services and resources, to the development of a standard accounting and reporting system for Canadian hospitals, and to improvements in diagnostic services. Through the hospital construction grant of 1948-1970, contributions in the amount of over $44 million were made to the provinces for the construction and upgrading of hospital and health facilities on the basis of $1,000 for each active treatment bed or its equivalent in diagnostic service areas, and $1,500 for each chronic or convalescent bed. Hon. members on the other side want to call this waste. I suggest it is not waste but a good investment for the benefit of all across Canada.
This grant assisted with costs of constructing space for more than 130,000 beds in active treatment, chronic convalescent, tuberculosis and mental hospitals; for more than 16,000 bassinets in newborn nurseries; for 24,300 beds in nurses' residences; for 900 beds in interns' residences; and for more than 8,300,000 square feet of floor areas for various hospital services available to both in patients and out-patients. Although not large in terms of the total cost of hospital construction, the grant provided an incentive which to no small degree assisted in providing new hospital beds and modernizing existing hospital buildings to meet the hospital bed deficit of 1948, the needs of a rapidly growing population in the 1950s and the increasing demand for hospital care following the introduction of hospital insurance in 1957-58.
The second step occurred in 1958, ten years later, with the implementation of the hospital insurance and diagnostic services program, under which the federal government shared in about half of the cost of provincial hospital insurance plans, which, of course, had to meet the minimum criteria of federal legislation.
With this implementation virtually all residents of Canada received more or less free hospital care, but given the inadequate level of private medical insurance coverage, there developed an incentive for both the doctor and the patient to use the hospital wherever possible. Canada had nearly seven insured hospital beds of various types per thousand of population throughout the sixties compared with approximately five per thousand in the United States; and, of course, with our program Canadians have greater financial access to those beds than the average citizen does in the United States.
So much for comparisons we always want to make with our neighbours to the south. So much for saying we are always the poor cousins. I suggest that the health care delivery system in Canada is second to none, not only on the North American continent, but the whole world over. As a matter of fact, Senator Kennedy is coming up here to get witnesses to testify before the United States senate committee, because he wants to implement a scheme there which is a good as ours. Here in Canada it is about time we told everybody how pleased we are with the things that we have, rather than always complaining about the things we do not have.
The net result was exactly what one would predict. Hospitals were used more. While admission rates per thousand are about the same as in the United States-between 162.1 and

November 27, 1978
Health Resources Fund Act
162.3 in 1964-the days of short-term hospital care are greater in number in Canada than in the United States-1,547, compared to 1,318 in 1974. In Canada, the average length of stay was approximately one and a half days greater-9.7 as compared with approximately 7.9 in the U.S. However, many short-term Canadian hospitals have long-term units, and if these are excluded, the Canadian figure becomes 1,389 days per 1,000 of population which is much closer to the U.S. figure.
During most of the 1960s, with this demand for the use of hospital beds, hospitals continued to be built in that time. We had the great hospital boom. Consequently, about 85 per cent of Canadian hospital beds are relatively modern and good for many years. When there are too many general hospital beds, regardless of the sophistication of budget review techniques, costs are difficult to control, especially when the supply is out of balance with care requirements. Many acute general hospitals cannot readily be converted to alternative uses, which would reduce the acute bed-population ratio more quickly.
In the Department of Veterans Affairs, many of the veterans presently in hospitals are not necessary acutely ill. They are there for temporary care, for long-term care and for rehabilitation. The veterans affairs department is in agreement with the provincial governments, that these men who served their country so well can be taken care of closer to their own homes and nearer to their friends and their families.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gilbert Parent: However, most provinces are trying to lower the active treatment bed-to-population ratio down to something more in the order of four to four and a half beds per thousand of population, from the six or more that most provinces have. A great deal of emphasis is being placed on ambulatory care. In my own riding of St. Catharines in the last four years, we have opened four of these personal nursing homes, which provide personal care for the aged and the chronically ill. In this way we have helped to cut down a great deal the number of people who are using the beds in hospitals, so that those in greater need can get in and be treated properly.
The planning guidelines to cut general hospital beds vary. For example, in Ontario and New Brunswick the goals are set at about four beds per thousand of population in urban areas, and 4.5 beds per thousand of population in rural areas. The goal for Quebec is 3.2 beds per thousand of population, while British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia have set targets of 4.5 beds per thousand of population. Saskatchewan is a little bit higher with a goal of five beds per thousand of population.
It should be noted that in Newfoundland the bed standards depend upon the service performed, two beds per thousands of population, where there is no surgery performed, 2.5 beds where minor surgery is performed, 3.2 beds for regional hospitals and four beds per thousands of population for provincial referral hospitals. These statistics give an over-view of what is

going on right across Canada and enable us to compare how Canadians are being treated in hospitals; for example, how they are treated in British Columbia and how they are treated in New Brunswick.
These ratios reflect the practical recognition of several factors, including the current inventory facilities, the range of insured institutional alternatives-that is, special rehabilitation, chronic nursing homes and personal care beds-the extent of ambulatory programs and services, as well as the demographic factors such as age, sex, and distribution of population. Beds are currently being taken out of service through attrition or amalgamation of services, particularly maternity and obstetrical beds, because of the great population decline we have experienced in recent years. This population decline is also reflected in the schools, in the decline in the number of children attending, which in turn causes a decline in the needs of teachers and schools. In my opinion there will be very few new schools or new hospitals built in Canada in the next few years simply because we now have an adequate number of both. The adequate number of hospitals we now have enables us to deliver beds at an adequate level of health care, so that Canadians can be proud of what we have done, what we are doing and what we will be doing in the years ahead.
How is this being done? The hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Andres) experienced the closing of a small hospital in his riding about a year ago.


Eymard G. Corbin: Caused by the Tory government.


Gilbert Parent: My colleague from New Brunswick says that it was a Conservative government that caused this. The Conservative government of the province said that restraints had to be carried out and they tell us they restrained selectively. I do not know what that means, but the member for Lincoln made it known that he would not stand for such a thing and subsequently the hospital was reopened. The hon. member knows now that the same level of health care is being delivered in his riding as it was prior to this cutback by a Tory government.
The role of the few general hospitals is being subjected to closer scrutiny than at any time in the past, and rightfully so. By continual review and analysis of actual health care needs, provinces are gradually and proportionately reducing the number of acute care beds and service relative to the population. Not only are we dealing here with healing people who are ill, but we are also dealing with preventive medicine, as touched upon earlier by the hon. member for Brome-Missis-quoi.
In the field of preventive medicine, Canada has made great strides. Recent unofficial figures for 1975 and 1976 show that the acute bed supply in Canada has decreased in absolute and relative terms from 128,000 in 1974 to 122,300 in 1976, or from 5.7 beds to 5.3 beds per thousand of population. The number of public hospitals in the last ten years has increased only slightly. The number of beds in public hospitals were 151,719 in 1975. With a beds-per-thousand ratio of 6.6,
November 27, 1978

including chronic, acute and convalescent beds, this has doubled the number of beds which existed some 25 years ago when the ratio was five.
I would like to deal briefly with the hospital insurance program, and also the utilization review. One of the most important spin-off benefits accruing from the hospital insurance program has been the tremendous bulk of statistics and data which can be used for planning and evaluation. The federal government has played a major role in standardization across the country of this data base. It has provided expertise for the provinces to set up a comprehensive data gathering and analysis system and the majority of provinces now have, because of this government, sophisticated computer application of these statistics. With this information they can measure themselves against any other province or city in Canada and determine whether they are delivering the health care which Canadians deserve.
Several volumes of hospital statistics for use by the hospital industry or other interested parties are now published on a regular basis yearly. At the hospital level the data are used for local administrative and planning purposes. At the provincial level the data are used, among other things, to make comparisons of the activities of similar hospitals, to assess the kinds of care, to estimate future costs for program planning, for research, evaluation, interpretation and ongoing administrative control.
The hon. minister at all times uses this data before she makes any decision like this for program planning and research. I would point out that in the field of research we provided in the last budget a great many incentives which will be good not only for our own citizens, but which can be used for the betterment of health care delivery for the citizens of the world. Canada was the country where insulin was discovered, which today is the greatest controller of diabetes, once considered a killer disease. It is now under control because of research that went on in Canada.
As I was saying, these data are also used, for example, as a control on utilization. Most provinces require long stay reports to be submitted on in-patients occupying a bed for longer than a specified period of time, generally between 15 to 30 days. Sophisticated computer programs have been devised in some provinces to compare the utilization of services in comparably sized hospitals. Again I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is very good because then you can see that your costs and your delivery system in a particular area are equal to those in another area, and if you are delivering not only quantity- which is what the hon. member on the other side was referring to-but quality in health care, with which we are involved here, it is quality which will not be compromised. This government would not think of compromising the quality of health care.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I thought you were finished.
Health Resources Fund Act


Gilbert Parent: The hon. member wishes I had finished my comments. That is only because I am pointing out the good things while they on the other side are used to hearing gloom and doom. When anyone tells them the way things are, they clap two or three times and retire behind the curtains. Sometimes they are told to clap and wear blue suits.
Studies on the pattern of the flow of patients, particularly in respect of hospitalization, make facility planning and reorganization of services a more meaningful exercise. This is largely possible because of the wealth of data on patients and services which is being assembled continuously on computer tapes. All aspects of provincial health care, including hospital utilization, medical care utilization and supporting social programs, can be examined in the light of data now being acquired and put on computer tapes. These studies provide valuable information on the incidence of specific surgical procedures in relation to the age and sex composition of the beneficiaries, as well as data on the location and provision of service.
As a result, special committees are set up to determine whether the procedures are in fact necessary and, if so, whether they are carried out with the requisite quality considerations. For example, the rate of hysterectomies or tonsillectomies varies considerably between communities in relation to proximity to academic centres-


An hon. Member:: One more time.


Gilbert Parent: Hon. gentlemen opposite wonder why I am laughing. It is because of some of the remarks that were made by hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski), the same hon. member who had the temerity today to table his football sweater. I am not sure of the number on the sweater. However, I do not want to get away from the subject. But this is why I laughed. I did not wish to be too serious about this. Now let me return to the more important things which we are here to discuss.
The cost of laboratory services for hospitalized patients and for ambulatory patients in government institutions, in hospitals or in private laboratories, can be obtained, analysed and evaluated.


An hon. Member:: Don't you wish you had a sweater to table!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gilbert Parent: This brings me to the subject of utilization under the hospital insurance program. Utilization of Canadian hospitals, measured by per capita admissions, patient days and length of stay, historically has been higher than in the United States-there is no argument there. This was true for the period prior to the introduction of hospital insurance. On the whole, the margins were sustained during the 1958 to 1972 period. In more recent years, the differential between U.S. and Canadian hospital admissions has been narrowing and, in my opinion, will continue to do so. Canada's per capita admission rate is on the decline while the U.S. rate continues to increase.

November 27, 1978
Health Resources Fund Act
With recent curtailments in the acute bed supply, per capita admissions are expected to decline further.
The number of hospital admissions per 1,000 population increased during the 1960s but since then has stabilized or has tended to decline. Patient days per 1,000 of population followed a similar pattern, and in fact have declined more markedly in the 1970s. The average length of stay, which has increased up to 1968 and 1969, has since tended to become progressively shorter and now seems to have stabilized below the 1961 level.
Now I should like to deal with what is probably one of the more important aspects of this bill, namely the quality of care under the hospital insurance program. As viewed by the Hall commission, quality-
-depends primarily on the supply, availability, knowledge, skill and dedication of professionally qualified personnel, secondly on the facilities at their disposal, and thirdly, on the organization services.
The quality of health care in Canada, as measured by these standards, has certainly been improved as a direct consequence of the health insurance program and related programs such as the health resources fund and professional training grants.
The supply of suitably qualified and trained health manpower increased significantly in the early stages of the hospital insurance program, with the funding available to teaching facilities and hospital nursing schools under the program, as well as the increased employment opportunities during the initial period of growth. Under the legislation, provinces were required to make arrangements so as to ensure that adequate standards were maintained in hospitals, including licensing and inspection. What good is it if you set up standards in hospitals, but you have no way of finding out what the quality of standards is in those hospitals?
The tradition of voluntary accreditation has been maintained in Canada through the Canadian Council on Hospital Accreditation which regularly surveys hospitals and related facilities and whose activities closely parallel those of the American Council on Hospital Accreditation. The accreditation program is actually financially supported by the provinces which recognize surveyor fees as an eligible cost.
All provincial hospital insurance plans have provisions for peer review for hospital care, that is, tissue committees, utilization, and length of stay committees. Peer review mechanisms also exist under the provincial medical care insurance plans in respect of services claimed by medical practitioners for inpatient, out-patient and non-hospital care.
While the approach and application of peer review procedures vary somewhat from province to province, the fact that collated utilization data are available in respect of virtually the total population of each province, contributes to more meaningful peer review. Generally speaking, each provincial plan requires standardized record and accounting procedures, including claims for the services of medical practitioners, so that a fair degree of interprovincial standardization has evolved in these matters.

The organization of health services likewise has been influenced by the programs, especially after the implementation of the Medical Care Act which set the stage for more integrated planning and operation of health care facilities and services. Progressive patient care, unimpeded by financial barriers, became much more feasible, as did regionalization of health services once basic diagnostic and therapeutic services-that is, hospital in-patient, out-patient, physician care, public and private laboratory, radiology, etc.-became insured. So it would be wrong to suggest that health care would in any way be diminished or jeopardized.
The minister has discussed this bill with us in caucus many times. There have been innumerable committees from which she has gleaned information from her colleagues in the House. I am sure the hon. minister, as so many of us, welcomed the interventions of hon. members opposite; but instead of forever putting before us the negative aspect of things, perhaps they could point out some of the good things which have been done and are being done for Canadians.
In no small part these are due to the fact that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has gone to great pains to see to it that not only the quantity of care is being maintained as much as possible in this time of restraint, but that the quality with which patients are treated in hospitals in no way can be affected detrimentally.
In the long run, the bill will be beneficial to all Canadian citizens. Also it will be beneficial in the short run, in times of restraint. I urge hon. members to vote for the bill now that some facts have been put before them, now they can judge for themselves and see the good things we are attempting to do in order to provide the health care which has existed in the past and will continue in the years ahead.


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have listened with interest and some measure of consternation to the words of the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Parent). I am reminded of a speech which was given to a group of uneducated people in the southern United States during a political campaign a number of years ago. The speaker was attempting to bring about the defeat of the other candidate and he said, "You know that this man who seeks to represent you is a pragmatist. Worse still, he graduated summa cum laude, and when he got to university, he was a Phi Beta Kappa". He threw these words at the audience and astounded them to the extent that they thought the other candidate was some kind of a creature from Mars. By his choice of words and the inflection in his voice, he confounded and confused his audience and they bought what he said.
This is the type of game the hon. member for St. Catharines is attempting to play. I cannot speak for his side, but I can for mine. The educational level on my side is such that we are not prepared to grab that kind of garbage. The hon. member did not say that it was his government which was responsible for the discovery of insulin and for the support of the discoverers of insulin, but he implied it by the tone and inflection of his
November 27, 1978

voice. Then he went on to poke fun at the Conservative whip. He was not really poking fun at the Conservative whip. He was attempting to cover up what he thought was something humorous, because he does not know the difference between a tonsillectomy and a hysterectomy. I would be pleased to demonstrate that to him at any time.
I saw the man launch into full flight. He said, "How blessed we are". He sounded like Oral Roberts. According to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the enemies of the government are opposition members and the press. Do the enemies and the people of Canada consider that they are blessed by the government? They are not; they are cursed by the government. They will find out just how cursed they are when the government has the guts to pull the pin and call an election.
I listened to the astute observations of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). He is capable and quite facile at distortion. He likes to pick at things, and he picked today. He talked about the Tories preaching restraint on the one hand, and wanting to bring in the program in its full bloom on the other. He spoke out of both sides of his mouth. He knows full well that there are programs of value which must be continued. Certainly the Auditor General described the programs and policies of waste which can be removed.
The other evening I had the opportunity to watch television at which time the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) was being interviewed. I could not help thinking then that for perhaps the first time in a long while we have a dedicated and sincere minister, and I have not changed my views in that regard. Frankly, if the minister could have her own way she would not contemplate for a minute the kind of bill which she introduced. The minister has a better appreciation of the social needs in Canada than that.
The Prime Minister went to Bonn, and he sailed the lake with his counterpart in West Germany. He went to Morocco, twiddled his toes in the sand and suffered a fit of sunstroke. In that blush of sunstroke, he returned to Canada and went on national television. He confused Canadians and confounded his cabinet. After it was all over and the debris had settled, we have the benefits which supposedly are being reaped by Canadians because of so-called restraint. The big free spenders suddenly realized the error of their ways. But they have cut holus-bolus. They have amputated without consultation with the patient, without the benefit of anaesthetic. I suppose I do not have to ask the classic question: How can the minister in conscience implement this bill without first consulting with the provinces? But I would be astounded if the government did anything else.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before we proceed with the late show, can an hon. member
Adjournment Debate
opposite tell us which comes first tomorrow as between Bill C-2 and Bill C-10?


Mr. Mclsaac:: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member's question, we shall continue with the consideration of Bill C-2 and then proceed to Bill C-10.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, on November 14 and on other occasions the Minister of State (Environment) (Mr. Marchand), in reply to questions concerning the amalgamation of the Forest Management Institute and the Forest Fire Research Institute in Ottawa with the Petawa-wa Forest Research Institute, indicated that the proposed amalgamation would result in considerable savings in administrative costs, and in his words would be good for forest services in general. He failed to say what it would cost in human terms, and said even less in terms of the loss of benefit to the forest industry in Canada.
I should like to put the picture into perspective. The minister spoke about the federal research arm of the industry which contributes approximately $6 billion to Canada's favourable balance of trade. This is part of the federal research arm of the industry which contributes something like $1 billion to the federal treasury and another $500 million to provincial treasuries. What are they slicing off? They are slicing $5.3 million from the budget.
What does the Canadian forestry service research cost in all? What does it cost when you consider the contribution it makes to the Canadian economy? I have made a rough calculation and it is something of the order of three-quarters of 1 per cent of the contribution to the export trade balance alone. I have made an attempt to find the figures in respect of federal contribution toward forestry research as a percentage of what the Canadian forest industry makes to the Canadian economy as a whole in terms of forest products, lumber, paper and employment, and I would suggest that the contribution there in those terms would be something of the order of .00 per cent.
Under this government, with the decrees after dark on August 1 on the road back from Bonn about which we heard just a few minutes ago, the Canadian forestry service finds itself in trouble, whatever the minister says. Why is the

November 27, 1978
Adjournment Debate
minister not prepared to wait, before following through with these cuts announced in August, until he has had the advice which he has sought, and which was due in June, from the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers, or until a task force has been put together to come up with recommendations on the future of the Canadian forestry service?
The minister has responded to other questions on the future of the Canadian forestry service and has allowed it to be believed that the Canadian forestry service is in good shape and will have no trouble whatever surviving the cuts that will be imposed on it. Does the minister know that he is in danger of losing the director of the institute, one of the senior scientists, the entire professional staff of the forest appraisal and remote sensor programs, all experts in fields in which Canada has led the world for 50 years, as well as some of the best technical support staff? Is this a service that is in good shape and will be in good shape after these cuts take place?
The minister has also led us to believe by his replies that the privatization scheme which he has in mind, and about which he is not at all clear-because he talked about Crown corporations on the one hand, and then he dropped that and talked about privatization-has been warmly received by the forest industry. That is what he has led us to believe.
In support of that claim the minister has stated that the chief executive officer of Crown Zellerbach, Mr. Rogers, and chairman of the Canadian Forestry Advisory Council, indicated his support for the proposal for privatization, and particularly in respect of the proposals for the forest products laboratories in the west and in the east. The truth of the matter is that the industry is not so warmly supportive of this notion as the minister would lead us to believe.
What the forest industry has done, in fact, through the Canadian Forestry Advisory Council, which incidentally had not met for three years until brought together in a panic by the minister about a month or two months ago in order to get some advice on this problem, was ask for bridging funds and for a bridging time so that the labs could be properly worked into the system. They could not accept April 1 as a date that is meaningful in terms of closing down, as has been proposed, or privatization.
I am sure when the parliamentary secretary replies he will ask where else the cuts could be made, and that is a most important question. I have suggested there are nodes of interface between the policy end of the operation by the government and the sharp end of implementation in the field. There are too many of these intervening nodes of administrative interface-that is the buzz word these days, as euphemism for roadblocks-between the government and the field operations. The Department of Supply and Services has to be brought in to negotiate contracts. The Auditor General recently warned us what that means in terms of cost and overruns.
There is a plethora of regional offices which have not been operational but which have been asked to recommend cuts.

The minister said he has been advised by his officials but those officials are in the administrative field, not in the research field, and so do not know the value of the work being done. The administrative section is obviously not making recommendations for cuts in their own functions but have recommended cuts in the laboratories and the research stations.


Mr. Donald Wood (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, it has become apparent to me in the last little while that members of the House, and more particularly the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro), are now fully realizing the importance of the forestry industry to Canada. Canada has always been known as a forest nation, and with the vast resources of its many provinces that will not change. In recent years there has been much diversification and industrialization in the forests, but that has really only gone to prove one thing-its limitless potential for the continued well-being of Canada.
One of the areas that has received more attention in the past few years is tree improvement and the intensification of forest management in general. Research has done wonders in the forestry industry, not only for the processing but more particularly as it relates to tree species and genetics. As a result of genetics, some of the new species can produce up to 50 per cent more wood than the older species in a given period of time. That is only a beginning and improvement in genetics will result in improvement in wood production.
This tree improvement research constitutes a major element of the Canadian forestry service research program. It is very important for the hon. member to fully realize and understand that the Canadian forestry service is much more than and plays a much larger role than mere research. It is responsible for the co-ordination of all federal policies which have anything to do with forestry. It must disseminate forestry statistics as they relate to the industry and it is very much involved in international activities and many other functions.
By far the largest part of these non-research activities falls to the headquarters of the Canadian forestry service. These offices are now staffed at the minimum level necessary and I am sure-at least I hope-that the hon. member would not want it to be otherwise.
I want to assure the hon. member that policy and economic studies will play a stronger role in the Canadian forestry service program in years to come. It is very important to keep all this in its proper perspective so that what the consolidation of the programs has meant and will mean to forestry in the future can be fully understood.
The consolidation of the Forest Management Institute and the Forest Fire Research Institute with the Petawawa forest experimental station will result in a strong, broadly based national research program. At the same time, substantial savings can be made in administrative costs. Again I say to the hon. member that I hope he is prepared to support savings and efficiencies as they relate to government spending.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member as his allotted time has expired.
November 27, 1978


LABOUR CONDITIONS-UNEMPLOYMENT FIGURES PUBLISHED BY STATISTICS CANADA-STATUS INDIANS
Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, recent changes in the unemployment insurance boundaries have combined northern regions of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta into one economic region. As a result the unemployment rate in northern Manitoba, which is the Churchill constituency, has dropped from 26 per cent to 4.6.
As you are no doubt aware, sir, the rate of unemployment in a region determines the length of work time needed to draw benefits and the length of time claimants can draw benefits. The more than 20 per cent drop in the unemployment rate in northern Manitoba means residents will now have to work 14 weeks instead of the former ten weeks required to claim benefits.
Contributing to this reduced unemployment rate is the fact that unemployed status Indians are not taken into account in Statistics Canada labour force figures. My question is: Why are status Indians not included in those statistics? Status Indians are part of the program; they pay into it, and they derive benefits from it. But now, because they are not included in the statistics of the unemployed, the qualifying period for unemployment insurance is longer and the re-entry period is extended to 20 weeks. This is a marked discrimination against Indian people. They are being treated as second class citizens and do not even rate Canada's statistics.
For the two years Canada Works has been in operation, the Churchill riding has received some of the highest grants for all of Canada. It is clear from the Statistics Canada figures used by Canada Works co-ordinators that northern Manitoba has a high percentage of people without work, and there are few jobs available.
Statistics Canada figures state that our labour force is nearly 35,000 in the Churchill constituency and that of these over 9,000 people are unemployed. More than half of the unemployed population, or 5,365, are status Indians. The Department of Indian Affairs puts the number of unemployed status Indians even higher at 7,993.
Regardless of the variations in figures, it is clear estimates exist that are at least semi-accurate. If the government can pinpoint our need for Canada Works dollars, surely it cannot turn a blind eye to the many status Indians who are unemployed and require unemployment insurance benefits.
The deputy minister of employment and immigration tried to tell me in committee on Wednesday that present survey measures are meaningless in assessing unemployment rates for status Indians on reserves, and that to devise alternate methods would involve substantial time and personnel resources. This is reprehensible. We are talking about people, the first people of Canada, being arbitrarily excluded from a government program to which they contribute, and in effect penalized because they are not part of the damned statistics.
The deputy minister of Indian affairs informed me Thursday there have been no discussions between the two depart-
Adjournment Debate
ments of Indian affairs and employment and immigration regarding the present distortion of the unemployment rate of the northern communities. When will this government deem this matter important enough to do something about it?
Will the concerned departments consider accepting figures from the department of Indian affairs for the number of unemployed status Indians on reserves? Or, alternately, will they accept a band council resolution certified by the chief and council as to the number of unemployed?
It is time this government took some action instead of having me run around to the different departments-employment and immigration, Indian affairs, and industry, trade and commerce, which is responsible for Statistics Canada-to change this contradictory and discriminatory policy. I want a firm commitment now that measures will be taken to ensure status Indians are included in the unemployment statistics of Canada.


Mr. Frank Maine (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the Unemployment Insurance Act as amended by Bill C-27 requires the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission to use rates of unemployment produced by Statistics Canada for the purpose of determining eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits. Status Indians on reserves are not included in the rates of unemployment produced by Statistics Canada. Therefore, unemployed status Indians on reserves are not included in the rate of unemployment for the 48 regions.
As the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith) has noted in committee, this is a problem with the unemployment rate provided by Statistics Canada, especially in northern Canada. Officials of the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission have been and will continue to be in contact with Statistics Canada to determine what can be done to rectify this situation.
I think it is fair to add that, based on official discussions held so far, it would not be an easy matter to adapt the traditional labour force survey to the particular conditions on reserves in which concepts of labour force employment and unemployment are different from those concepts when applied to the vast majority of the working population in urban centres. Indeed our advice from the bureau is that considerable time and resources would be required to come to grips effectively with the problem.
Nevertheless, we realize it is important that something be done, and we are therefore proposing to contact immediately the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to determine what action they, the bureau, and the commission might take to produce acceptable measures of unemployment statistics for status Indians on reserves, and gradually improve these over the years.
Hon. members will, of course, be aware that in the allocation of funds for the Canada Works program, labour surplus rates are calculated for Indians on reserves. These, we have to

November 27, 1978
Adjournment Debate
admit, are rough and ready estimates and are not produced by Statistics Canada. As a result, they could not be used for the purposes of the unemployment insurance program. Thus, it will be important for us to pursue immediately the course of action which I have outlined, that is to say, co-operative discussions between the commission, the bureau and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, to determine the most practical and acceptable means of resolving the problem.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-FEASIBILITY STUDY ON COAL MINE IN DONKIN, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, further to my questions of November 15 when the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) was unavoidably absent, I should like to have the answers from his parliamentary secretary this evening.
Since the first phase of the feasibility study on the Donkin Mine has been finished, would it be possible to get a 12 to 20 page summary for myself and other interested members from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion standing committee? I realize that the report would be more than one volume and would be technical in detail, but I would be very interested in getting a resume.
As I indicated in my questions, the more important second phase that involves the economic feasibility of the prospects for the new mine should be soon ready. It was indicated to me by a top Devco official last August that they expect the second phase to be finished by March or April before it goes to the Treasury Board. Can the parliamentary secretary to the minister confirm this or give us a more accurate date for when this second phase of the study will be finished?
This, of course, involves, among other things, whether the decision is going to be to build a mine that will have an annual production of a million, two million or four million productive capacity. It goes without saying, Mr. Speaker, that this is extremely important to an area with such high unemployment.
The employment selection officer for the Cape Breton Development Corporation informed me that as of October 1, 1978 there are 1,850 applications from Glace Bay for general employment in Devco. There are another 2,000 from New Waterford. The total for the whole of the Cape Breton area was estimated as of October 1 to be 4,900.
One can see how critical this mine at Donkin is to the future of the area from an employment point of view; it would have spin-off effects which would make for at least another 1.5 jobs per worker in the rest of that economy. It also indicates the prime need to go ahead with the modernization of the Sydney Steel plant so as to avoid even more desperate levels of unemployment in the area. Similarly, it becomes urgent to press on with the operations in Prince Mine to meet the employment objectives which were mentioned when the mine was first started.

I referred to the steel industry in my remarks tonight because the future of the biggest employer in the Glace Bay area, mine No. 26 with its low sulphur and premium coking coal qualities, depends in part for its success on the Sydney Steel operation. One of the major concerns I heard expressed recently during my visit to the constituency is that the coal cleaning plant so vital to a reconstructed coal industry is still experiencing serious production problems.
I am told that in the last month there have been vast improvements in the operation of the plant, but as I mentioned in my question there are rumours that, because of its over-all failure to fulfil the expected potential, we may not be able to fill some of the coking coal requirements contracted for with such users of coke and coal as the Steel Company of Canada and Dofasco. If there is any truth to this it could be a serious blow to our prospects, because everyone with a knowledge of the industry knows that there is on average a $10 per ton premium at least for coking coal as against coal for use in generating thermal power. The prepared blends of coal from No. 26 with lingan coal make for an excellent metallurgical coking coal.
I ask the parliamentary secretary to provide answers to these questions which are bothering me.


Donald Paul Wood: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity to reply to the hon. member; I only hope 1 shall have time in which to fully answer his questions.
The Donkin Mine feasibility study was originally scheduled to be carried out in two stages. Phase one was scheduled to begin in May 1978 with a'report which would compare the economics of several project configurations using cost estimates and assumptions regarding marketability and the like. If phase one gave indications that the mine would be financially viable, phase two would be undertaken to provide definitive cost and performance figures which would be presented to the Government of Canada with a request for the necessary funds to develop the mine.
Unfortunately, it was not possible to prepare the phase one report by October 6 because of delays in getting information from the offshore bore holes and the seismic surveys, information which was necessary to determine the size, extent and quality of the coal seams which would be mined during the next 30 years or so.
On October 11, 1978, a preliminary verbal report was presented to Devco management. This was followed on November 20 by a second verbal report which showed that several mine layouts would be economically viable. The report also indicated there were additional possible mine layouts which should also be studied to determine which would provide the greatest economic benefit.
In view of the delays experienced to date and the importance of maintaining the final date of February 28, 1979, the date by which phase two was to be completed, it was decided to dispense with the preparation of a formal report marking the end of phase one and to proceed directly with the work
November 27, 1978

required to complete phase two. This work is presently being done and the study is now on schedule.
The Cape Breton Development Corporation has not presented the first phase of the feasibility study to the minister. Verbal discussions were held with Devco management. The study is scheduled to be completed by the end of February, 1979.
Our metallurgical coal production has grown from approximately 417,000 tons in 1976 to 1.2 million tons in 1977. At the present time our production rate is running about 1.5 million
Adjournment Debate
tons. In the current year production rates have continued to improve, and had it not been for a short strike and operating difficulties in the early part of 1977, the full deliveries of coal would have been supplied to our Great Lakes customers.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has gone beyond his allotted time and I must interrupt him.
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock p.m. tomorrow.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.29 p.m., without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

November 27, 1978


APPENDIX &quot;A&quot;
[Stage Direction]
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE 238 PROJECTS: 5 in Newfoundland in the amount of $30.5 million 1 in Prince Edward Island in the amount of $0.61 million 7 in Nova Scotia in the amount of $34.1 million 12 in New Brunswick in the amount of $15.5 million 57 in Quebec in the amount of $104.0 million 113 in Ontario in the amount of $ 141.4 million 9 in Manitoba in the amount of $11.9 million 9 in Saskatchewan in the amount of $19.5 million 7 in Alberta in the amount of $25.6 million 17 in British Columbia in the amount of $33.5 million 1 in Northwest Territories in the amount of $0,113 million
[Stage Direction]

November 27, 1978

[Stage Direction]
Canada Health	No. of Graduates per year at	
	Beginning of Fund	No. of Graduates
[Stage Direction]
Manpower Category
[Stage Direction]
(1966)
[Stage Direction]
(1976)
[Stage Direction]
Audiologists and Speech Therapists
[Stage Direction]
30
[Stage Direction]
147
[Stage Direction]
Biomedical Engineers
[Stage Direction]
14
[Stage Direction]
39
[Stage Direction]
Chiropractors
[Stage Direction]
39
[Stage Direction]
99
[Stage Direction]
Dental Assistants
[Stage Direction]
58
[Stage Direction]
917
[Stage Direction]
Dental Hygienists
[Stage Direction]
82
[Stage Direction]
350
[Stage Direction]
Dentists
[Stage Direction]
296
[Stage Direction]
465
[Stage Direction]
Dieticians
[Stage Direction]
200
[Stage Direction]
281
[Stage Direction]
Health Record Administrators
[Stage Direction]
172
[Stage Direction]
215
[Stage Direction]
Health Service Executives
[Stage Direction]
30
[Stage Direction]
105
[Stage Direction]
Medical Laboratory Technologists
[Stage Direction]
265
[Stage Direction]
1,200
[Stage Direction]
Nurses
[Stage Direction]
7,387
[Stage Direction]
10,051
[Stage Direction]
Nursing Assistants
[Stage Direction]
3,800
[Stage Direction]
5,506
[Stage Direction]
Occupational Therapists
[Stage Direction]
78
[Stage Direction]
237
[Stage Direction]
Optometrists
[Stage Direction]
34
[Stage Direction]
96
[Stage Direction]
Pharmacists
[Stage Direction]
358
[Stage Direction]
646
[Stage Direction]
Physicians
[Stage Direction]
880
[Stage Direction]
1,725
[Stage Direction]
Physiotherapists
[Stage Direction]
232
[Stage Direction]
446
[Stage Direction]
Public Health Inspectors
[Stage Direction]
40
[Stage Direction]
106
[Stage Direction]
Radiological Technicians
[Stage Direction]
662
[Stage Direction]
708
[Stage Direction]
Respiratory Technologists
[Stage Direction]
9
[Stage Direction]
138
[Stage Direction]
Veterinarians
[Stage Direction]
103
[Stage Direction]
226
[Stage Direction]
TOTALS Increase of 8,939
[Stage Direction]
14,764
[Stage Direction]
23,703
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, November 28, 1978