1978-11-28

Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of urgency related to the Canadian Wheat Board's intention to purchase grain cars.
The president of Palliser Wheat Growers Association says, "The current lack of grain movement off the prairies is not a railroad problem. The railroads are presently booked at only 50 per cent to 60 per cent of capacity to Thunder Bay, and only 40 per cent to 50 per cent of capacity to Vancouver" and, further, states, "Neither cars nor motive power are the problem"-when it comes to moving grain for export.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton):
That the Minister of Transport, in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, release figures on which the decision was made by him or by the Wheat Board to establish there is a requirement for that board to spend hard-earned farmers' funds to buy hopper cars, because there appears to be some question as to need at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: The introduction of such a motion for debate at this time can be done only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FISHERIES
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that Newfoundlanders who man the four fisheries patrol vessels operating from the province are discriminated against, since they must work three, four and sometimes more weeks at sea with only an assurance of three weeks' holidays each year, while
crews operating out of Nova Scotia have two weeks on duty and then two weeks off, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the Minister of Fisheries cease treating his Newfoundland seamen, the finest in the world, as galley slaves and treat them as if they sailed from mainland ports, with the same rates of pay and working hours and conditions as Canadians, while they patrol from outside the Arctic Circle throughout the North Atlantic waters and that man-years be authorized for the additional crew needed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the report yesterday by the government's new watchdog agency, the CSIP, which blamed spiralling food costs on increased profits, up 63 per cent between the first and third quarters of this year, per unit of output-a much greater rate than unit labour costs-and in view of the fact that consumers are still bearing the burden of inflation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That this House instruct the Prime Minister to dismiss as unfair and unworkable the reimposition of wage controls, and ask him instead to instruct his Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to take concrete action to protect consumers against unwarranted profit-taking, as clearly Ontario's minister of consumer and commercial relations is not prepared to act to help consumers, having instead suggested only that consumers not buy products such as turkey where profits are unnecessarily high.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
80067-27l/2

November 28, 1978


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the alarming precedent, condoned by the government, of the tender by the Canadian Wheat Board for hopper cars at the expense of the western grain producer, thereby opening the way for the requirement of primary agricultural producers and other natural resource producers to supply their own rolling-stock, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin):
That this House reject the policy of this government to extend the user-pay policy to a policy of producer-pay.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to seek the unanimous consent of this House. In view of the harsh economic conditions suffered by the many Indian people of this country, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development be included in the new super ministry responsible for economic development in Canada, to ensure native peoples' concerns are represented in the over-all economic development of this country.


Mr. Speaker:: The 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.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move a motion under Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that four organizations-Canadian Arctic Resources Committee, Canadian Nature Federation, Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, and the Canadian Wildlife Federation- have raised serious objections to the procedures followed by the federal Environmental Assessment Review Panel which is

currently reviewing a proposal for exploratory drilling by Norlands Petroleum Ltd. in the Lancaster Sound region of the Northwest Territories, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the Minister of the Environment investigate these charges outlined in a letter sent to him on November 23, 1978, by the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee, and state that the hearings which begin today in Pond Inlet, N.W.T., will be conducted in a manner that is fair to all parties involved.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate at this time can be done only by unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of an important and pressing nature to seek unanimous consent to put a motion before the House.
As there is considerable concern in the maritime region, as expressed by the Council of Maritime Premiers, the Public Service Alliance, numerous real estate boards, the New Brunswick Association of Professional Engineers and other responsible groups interested in promoting the maritime region, over the apparent decision of the ministry of DREE to withdraw its financial support of the land registry service just entering its second five-year option, and as this very valuable work provided by the public sector has progressed extremely well to date and is vital to the successful completion of a visionary program made possible by the joint co-operation of the federal and provincial governments of the region, and as the program provides employment for well over 200 people, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. Crosby):
That this House does forthwith instruct the Minister of Regional and Economic Expansion to review the decision to discontinue his department's support for the land registry service program and continue to support this program which is so vital to the development of the land resources of the entire maritime region.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the motion can be presented to the House under the terms of Standing Order 43, unanimous consent is required. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
November 28, 1978


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my motion arises out of the study which was issued today by the Centre for the Study of Inflation and Productivity, which states that in the last 18 months, profits by food companies have increased by some 63 per cent, much faster than labour cost inputs. I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House ask the government to instruct the corporations involved to roll back those food prices which have been artificially inflated by excessive profits in the food industry.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to this motion being presented under the terms of Standing Order 43?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the terms of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity affecting the Public Service of Canada.
The public service has been in a state of turmoil and depression since the presentation of the measures contained in Bill C-28 and because of the failure of the past president of the treasury board to consult with the bargaining agents for the public service on changes in the laws affecting public servants. Since the new President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Buchanan) has now declared his intention to respect the concerns of the public servants of Canada, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Hare):
That the government direct the President of the Treasury Board to convene immediately a meeting with the officers of the Public Service Alliance and other bargaining agents for the public service for the purpose of establishing a consultative process to consider proposed changes in the laws affecting public servants and any amendment to the Public Service Staff Relations Act relating to collective bargaining.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the terms of Standing Order 43, unanimous consent of the House is required before the motion can be presented. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. There are presently some 360,000 tons of grain in transit to the west. That represents about 5,000 grain cars: many of them are only two-thirds full. Some were 1,000 bushels short because they were misdirected to branch lines which could not carry them.
As Canadian Pacific Railway has declined the government's offer to fix up 1,000 grain cars, saying they were not needed because its grain fleet was sufficient, I should like to ask the minister whether he discussed this proposed purchase by the Wheat Board of up to 2,000 hopper cars with the railways, and whether he is satisfied that these additional cars are really required.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the question of the number of cars which may be required is a very complicated one having to do, first af all, with the manner of using the cars; how many times, for instance, they are turned around between the prairies and Thunder Bay or the west coast. There can, therefore, be a number of opinions as to the number of cars required.
There is a further question which arises: do you have just enough cars to manage the ordinary heavy movement, or do you have additional cars to manage high peak movement when that is required, even though it be for only a five or six-week period?
The railways, particularly CP, have been arguing that the required number will be available, but I am not at all sure that I agree with their judgment. I reported back to CP and urged them again to enter into a rehabilitation program for 1,000 boxcars. We will be taking that suggestion to CN to see if they will enter into a further agreement with regard to rehabilitation.
The point is that the judgment about how many cars are required is a difficult one. I am satisfied that additional cars will be required in the fairly near future. Whether that will be in six months, 12 months or 18 months is the only question, because of the volume of grain that will be involved. The Wheat Board, obviously, did not want to take the chance of not having those cars so it made a judgment in favour of ordering up to 2,000 cars. I am sure the board will be mindful of the fact that there might ordinarily be an obligation to pay demurrage charges, and additional cars might avoid some of those charges.


Frank Fletcher Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, we are well aware that the grain cars in service now average 18

November 28, 1978
Oral Questions
round trips a year. It would seem that better utilization of the fleet is what is required. Producers are afraid that they will be tabbed for $100 million to buy these additional cars and that, in addition, the Crow rate will be raised. Has the minister discussed this purchase with the farm groups of western Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Wheat Board handles most of the discussions. But I would like to make it very clear, and I am sure hon. members will be interested to know, that the Wheat Board did discuss this matter with producers and, most particularly, with the elected advisory board which is elected by the 11 districts throughout the prairies and which is composed of those chosen by farmers to represent them. My information is that that advisory board, which includes some of the best known spokesmen for agriculture in the west, unanimously supported the decision by the Canadian Wheat Board to order the cars.


Frank Fletcher Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, my impression is that this has come as a distinct shock to every farm organization in western Canada. There is now a 42-cent per bushel premium, Vancouver over Thunder Bay. We are getting off just over 500 cars a day there. We used to get off 750 cars a day. Has the minister considered appointing a transport controller to get us out of this tangle?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we have appointed co-ordinators at terminals, which has been a very effective step in bringing about far more unloads than was common a few years ago. I am not satisfied that the system is working to its maximum and, as a result, over some of the objections of hon. members opposite we appointed a firm of outstanding management consultants to look at the question of interface between the various parts of the grain handling system. What each part does is important in relation to the turnaround of these cars. Hon. members should remember that in the three years between 1974 and 1977, a very significant increase of up to 34 per cent, in terms of effective carrying capacity of our car fleet, occurred as a result of improvements which were introduced into the system.


LEGAL OPINION ON BOARD'S PURCHASE OF HOPPER CARS
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. Is the minister satisfied that the Canadian Wheat Board has the power under the act to purchase hopper cars and to charge the cost to producers? Specifically, has he or the board received a legal opinion from the law officers of the Crown? If so, will he table that opinion? It seems, on the face of it, that the action of the board is neither within the spirit nor the letter of the law.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Canadian Wheat Board did seek and obtain a legal opinion before it took this step. The hon. member may again be painting a false picture when he says that the charges for these cars will be levied against farmers.

The fact is that any such charging will be done only over a prolonged period of years in terms of the way in which the cost of these cars is incorporated into their ongoing operations.
Second, it should be apparent that any solution as recommended by Mr. Justice Hall and the Hall commission to the problem regarding how grain costs are paid could well include taking over the cost of these cars. As a result of my conversations with the Canadian Wheat Board, I know that the board has this aspect very much in mind. The Wheat Board may just assure that it has the cars, without any real or significant cost to farmers over any period of time.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, despite what the minister has said, the ultimate cost of these cars will be charged back to the producer. Is it the intention of the board, if it proceeds with this purchase, to charge the cost of these cars only to producers of on-board grains, or does it intend also to charge a proportionate share of the cost to those who produce off-board grains and oilseeds?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the board will know that if any charges are made in any way to farmers, it is those farmers in relation to whom the charge is made who will have the advantage of the cars and it is their grain which will be hauled by these cars.
The hon. member ignored all too lightly my statement that as we move toward a solution of the Hall commission recommendation in relation to carrying grain, it seems obvious to me that the cost of these cars will be incorporated in that solution and, therefore, in the end will not be borne by farmers at all. I do not think the hon. member should run away from that very important statement at this time and try to frighten farmers, when the Canadian Wheat Board has made what I think is a very useful decision to ensure that necessary cars are made available to haul grain.


Douglas Charles Neil: Until this time the minister has not paid much attention to the Hall recommendations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Charles Neil: Because of the unprecedented move by the Wheat Board, and because of the opposition that is building up among producers in the farm organizations, is the minister prepared to make himself and officials of his board available as witnesses before the Standing Committee on Agriculture?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member knows the minister and the Wheat Board are always very happy to appear before the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
November 28, 1978


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: In the absence of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Considering that according to the report of the Economic Council of Canada which came down yesterday, manufacturing profits were up some 35 per cent in the last nine months-


Mr. Woolliams:: Good.


John Edward Broadbent: My Tory friend, reflecting the philosophy of the Tory party, says "Good".


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I like to see profits, don't you?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I always thought if we had profits we would have jobs.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I should like to ask the minister, since profits are up and real wages are declining, thus offering proof that we have had wage controls in the last few years but no price controls, whether the minister can tell us, on behalf of the government, what he plans to do about the high level of profiteering which exists in this country right now?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: It is true that the CSIP report to the first ministers does indicate that price increases of food have been due in large part to increased profits and wage developments. 1 think that if the hon. member reads the report, he will see that wages did increase rather substantially and that moderation came only very recently. But they do blame the increases in the price of food on those two elements.
I must say, however, that I am somewhat perplexed, because the AIB report on profit margins which came out in June presented a different analysis. Since I only received this report today, I am still in the position of examining the details. But I agree with the hon. member that the allegations are serious and should be pursued, and I will report further when 1 have completed my studies.


John Edward Broadbent: If the minister would read the report with care, he would see that profits "have increased at a significantly faster rate than unit labour costs over the same period". The words which I should like to underline for the minister are "significantly faster".
My first question was not specifically about the food industry, but about manufacturing in general. Profits are up by some 35 per cent, in some sectors by 94 per cent and in others in excess of 47 per cent. I should like to repeat the general question: what does the government have in mind, given the fact that real wages now are declining at the rate of about 2 per cent a year, to stop the profiteering that is going on in the country and affects every Canadian family?
Oral Questions


William Warren Allmand: I think we will have to determine with precision whether or not there has been profiteering. It is true that this report indicates that the increase in food prices has been due in part to the great increase in profits, but I want to compare their work with the work of the AIB report to determine where the difference lies; and if action is required, we will look at it.


John Edward Broadbent: Considering that this report provides in a pretty clear and graphic way a comparison of food price changes with profit changes and with unit labour cost changes,
I think it would not be an excessive challenge, even to this cabinet, to produce a document to show that that evidence is false. Certainly, every Canadian buying food knows the prices are going up.
[DOT] (U27)
Would the minister have the heads of the major food companies come to Ottawa and get from them their figures to explain the profiteering? Then, if he is convinced it is taking place, will he take steps to order rollbacks so that this gouging of consumers can be brought to a halt?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I have met on a regular basis with the heads of the food industry and other industries in the consumer business. As a matter of fact, this week I met with the manager of the Retail Council of Canada.
The hon. member made a good suggestion. I would be pleased to call them in and have them explain some of these figures.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. To a question put to him on December 14, 1977 by one of my colleagues on the possibility for the Outaouais region in Quebec of being recognized as a designated area, the minister replied in part, and I quote:
We have considered the possibility of intervening and are now considering it; I trust that within coming weeks, or possibly months, we will be in a position to announce a decision.
As that answer was given in this very House almost a year ago, can the minister tell us what has become of the study asked of his officials? In addition, when does he intend to make the final decision promised such a long time ago?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, for several months now we have been studying the economic situation in the Outaouais region. Part of that area, as we know, is already designated

November 28, 1978
Oral Questions
and has already benefited from the programs of our departments, both as provided by the act on direct assistance to industry or the joint assistance of the two levels of government. We have revised those programs over the last few months. We have looked into the designation of that area and what that could give it concretely, as well as other alternatives, such as joint action with the provincial government or with other government levels or other departments in Ottawa. Just a few days ago I received a progress report on those negotiations and I still hope that the best decision can be reached between the various levels of government which were consulted and myself, so that we can come up with what could prove to be the best possible program under the circumstances.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Considering that several in-depth studies on the economic and industrial situation in that area have already been made by the Societe d'amenagement de l'Outaouais and by several other agencies which represent that area; considering that the rate of unemployment is continuously increasing compared to the provincial rate and that the rate of industrial growth is the lowest in Quebec, can the minister say whether he is really interested in that file and whether he intends to urge a solution for that area, as he has just said?


Marcel Lessard: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am really interested in that file, and I have been for several months, but I am not the only one who takes an interest in that file; so do hon. members on this side, particularly those who represent the national capital region and the Outaouais area, the hon. members for Hull, Gatineau and Pontiac. We work together to find what would be the best solution for the development of the Outaouais area. So far, however, I am not satisfied that the mere fact of designating the area to make it eligible for industrial grants could meet the needs of the Outaouais area. Such a measure has already been applied to the area and it did not produce the expected effects. We were subjected to hard criticism by some people in the Outaouais area because that program was not considered as sufficient in the face of the difficulties. I do not intend to propose again the designation of the area, if it is the kind of reception we can expect. I would rather establish a concerted plan which will meet not only the needs but also the potential of the Outaouais area.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's Fast):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Given the fact that the Centre for the Study of Inflation and Productivity, which released its report yesterday

or today, has no investigatory powers but has available to it the same sources of information that are available to the minister, namely, the Consumer Price Index, given the fact that the CPI has shown a steady increase in the price of food and that CSIP reacted to these food price increases by saying, "The rapid increase in food prices over last year can be placed on soaring profits for food and beverage manufacturers", what steps is the minister taking within his department to ensure that consumers in Canada are not being ripped off? What ongoing investigations are under way within his department in the area of food prices?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, it is not correct that we have the same capability as CSIP for price monitoring. As a matter of fact, the price monitoring capability for government is now centred in CSIP.
However, we do have the capability of receiving the reports. We have the report that was tabled yesterday and, as I answered an hon. member, I will be giving it very serious consideration and will be attempting to determine why there are differences in this report from the AIB report which was tabled in June, which indicated a smaller and more reasonable profit on the part of industries in the food business. Once these reports are analysed, we will attempt to take some action to help consumers.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the minister does have the power to investigate and I would like to give him a specific area. Last week in this House, in answer to questions put to the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs with respect to increases in the price of turkeys, the Minister of Agriculture said that the price increases could not be justified; that there were, in fact, adequate supplies on hand and that producers were only getting a 4 per cent increase, whereas the minister said that prices would be going up because supplies had declined.
Who speaks for the government? What is the minister doing to lay the facts on the floor of the House of Commons and to tell the people of Canada why, for example, turkey prices in this country today are as high as $1.65 a pound. What is the minister doing about that?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is mixing turkeys and prices in general. That is not unusual for him. We do not have a price monitoring unit in our department. The price monitoring unit for the government is now with CSIP, under the Economic Council. I suggest that the hon. member check his facts on that. However, we do have the capability of examining the reports that are presented by the AIB and CSIP and suggesting action to deal with these problems. That has been done in the past and I will do it again.
With respect to turkeys, what I said to the House the other day was that as of November 1 this year we had only 50 million pounds of stock available, whereas last year at the same time there were 72 million pounds of stock. This is a decreased supply, in a situation where demand has increased.
November 28, 1978

The Turkey Marketing Board has asked for an increase in quotas this year, but they have been turned down by the National Farm Products Marketing Council, which indicates to me that the National Farm Products Marketing Council needs more consumer input.


James Aloysius McGrath: 
AGRICULTURE
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to revert to the matter raised by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek and the hon. member for Moose Jaw and direct to the Minister of Agriculture a question that is of particular interest to farmers across this country.
In view of the fact that the Board of Grain Commissioners has the power of licensing grain terminals on the west coast, would the minister consider asking the Board of Grain Commissioners, which comes under his jurisdiction, to meet with the companies having grain terminals on the west coast and asking them to show reason why they should retain their licences for those elevators when they are not operating them seven days a week at a time when the demand on these terminals is tremendous?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, all I can say to the hon. member is that I will certainly contact the chairman of the Canadian Grain Commission and talk to him about this. It is the first time this has been brought to my attention.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for his interest in this matter, because he has great power at this particular moment.
The second thing I would ask the minister to do is to ask the Board of Grain Commissioners if they will consider giving final export permit licences for barley, based on country elevator standards, so that barley shipments can bypass these terminals and go through the bulk loading facilities on the west coast.
Oral Questions AIRPORTS


FOURTH RUNWAY AT TORONTO INTERNATIONAL
Mr. Ross Milne (Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Members will remember that on November 8, I rose in this House and received assurance from the minister that he would not alter his decision not to build a fourth runway at Toronto international airport. I share the concern of the many people in Brampton-Bramalea when they read in the local paper last week that the airport manager said that the runway was necessary and that studies were continuing.
Would the minister reiterate his commitment not to proceed with runway expansion, which would cause further disturbance and annoyance to at least 75,000 people, at the Toronto international airport?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I regret the interpretation put upon a statement made by the Toronto airport manager. I think that in fact he wanted to indicate that additional facilities in the Toronto area would be required in the near future, but that was said in connection with the fact that we were doing some technical studies with regard to the question of a fourth runway.
A couple of weeks ago I tried to explain to the House that these studies were being done in order to have information against any argument that we should go ahead with a fourth runway. I have been impressed with the uneasiness this has caused people who have built in the area where the fourth runway would have an effect on noise levels and who built there based upon the commitment of this government not to build such a major runway to their disadvantage. Accordingly, having concluded that I would find it difficult to ease their concern in any other way, I have today directed that the studies with regard to the fourth runway be stopped immediately.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, on a matter of some importance at this Christmas shopping time of year, and about which I have given the minister notice.
Given the fact that exposure to microwaves is suspected of causing numerous side effects and may, in fact, be a serious health hazard, and since the environmental health directorate of the health protection branch feels there is a definite need for further research on microwaves, can the hon. lady advise the House what steps she has taken to protect Canadians, considering the increasing use of microwave ovens? Are they safe, or not?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I will consider the request and Hon. Monique B6gin (Minister of National Health and
talk to the Canadian Grain Commission.	Welfare): Mr. Speaker, the standards for design, construction
1564

November 28, 1978
Oral Questions
and functioning of microwave ovens are established under the Radiation Emitting Devices Act. We have issued a pamphlet on the question of microwave ovens, which is updated regularly. Standards are reviewed constantly, according to research results arrived at either in Canada or abroad.
At this point in time, I would like to assure Canadians because, as the hon. member has said, it is Christmas shopping time, there is no reason for concern about any additional, new danger with regard to microwave ovens. I am satisfied that the standards we have issued in the department are sufficient.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: 
SAFETY STANDARDS FOR RADIATION FROM ELECTRICAL LINES AND MICROWAVE LINES
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question concerning radiation from electrical power lines as well as microwave transmission lines. Can the minister inform the House whether her department has made any progress toward the establishment of safety standards governing radiation from electrical lines and microwave transmission lines?


Hon.   Monique@: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to have a day to obtain an update on that subject. I will answer the hon. member tomorrow or the day after.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport, of which I have given him notice: it concerns an article in the Globe and Mail today on the planned CNR spur line at Malton which could have serious environmental consequences for area homes.

In view of the fact that the CNR did undertake an environmental design study on the project but withheld its findings until work on the spur line had already begun, will the minister ask the CNR to delay further construction until the independent study being financed by the municipality is completed next week? Will the minister instruct the CNR to meet with the Peel regional council to consider possible alternatives which would cause less disruption for the 4,000 people in northern Malton?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly take the representation of the hon. member under advisement and consider whether there is any action I should properly take in this regard. I should say, however, in fairness to the CN, that it should be observed that before these houses were located in this particular place, the CNR considered that it was unwise to open up the subdivision for this development because of its operations. It made its view of the problem known at the time, but it was overridden by other decision-making bodies.


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of State (Environment). The ministry of environment for the province of Ontario recommended in August, 1974, that the CNR rail lines immediately north of Malton be relocated because of the likelihood of increased traffic and the noise levels which prevailed at that time. In 1975, the ministry again criticized the CNR for its failure to provide any public participation program in its study.
Could the minister explain to the House why Environment Canada approved the 1977 environmental design report for the project which provided the authority for the CNR to go ahead, despite the environmental violence the spur line would bring to the citizens living in northern Malton?


Hon. Len Marchand (Minister of State (Environment)):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to that particular question, I will take it as notice.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


SUGGESTION FEED GRAINS BE UNDER SOLE JURISDICTION OF WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the fact that two commissioners of the board have said that the open market feed grains policy is congesting elevator space and undermining the board's marketing activities, in view of the fact there is enough private enterprise feed grain in Thunder Bay right now to fill the domestic market for the rest of the winter, occupying 15.5 per cent of the space at Thunder Bay at a time when the Wheat Board is short of board stocks, and because there is unrestricted delivery of non-board feed grain which is destroying the
November 28, 1978

equality of the quota system that the western farmers fought so hard to get, will the minister consider recommending to the government and to the Wheat Board that feed grains be put back under the sole jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the current feed grain policy resulted after two years of deliberation by farm organizations which failed to produce any alternative solution to the problem of making sure that producers of animals anywhere in this country would have an equal opportunity to obtain supplies of feed grains at similar prices, plus transportation. In view of that fact, I do not think it is fair to jump at a particular problem in relation to the policy.
We have said that a certain form of quotas, and particularly the assignment of acres, would be a reasonable way of limiting delivery opportunities to the open market. In addition, I have no doubt that this year the fairly wide-open permission to switch grain from one elevator to another led to elevators being congested with what were essentially open market grains, even though technically there was a limit of 20 per cent on the amount of open market grain allowed in any one elevator. The Wheat Board has reacted to that policy by suspending switching; that problem should, therefore, gradually dissipate. I think the question of allowing switching may still be a live one. Perhaps if it is allowed, it could be limited to those cases where there is an actual sale of grain to a producer at the elevator to which the grain is to be switched.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, since the complaint is coming from commissioners of the board, let alone from myself, other hon. members and grain producers, and in view of the fact that the amount of off-board grain so far this year is double that which was delivered last year, which is displaced capacity the Wheat Board could have used to handle export grain, which in turn has meant lower opening Wheat Board quotas which coerce farmers who are short of cash to deliver grain on the open market, even though they get 48 cents per bushel less-as of yesterday's market-for No. 1 feed barley than they would through the board, will the minister instruct the Canadian Wheat Board to start implementing quotas on off-board grain and allow no deliveries until such time as we have sufficient board grain to meet our export requirements?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the problem can only be one of the specific location of the stocks. Hon. members may appreciate that since the off-board market has no access whatsoever to export markets, the amount of feed grain which can be disposed of in that market is to the animals eating it in Canada. That is very limited; it is a very definite amount. If any off-board markets acquire more than that stock, they will have to carry it at their expense and it will be their own lookout in terms of lost profit. The market has its own pricing mechanism to discourage unnecessary or overdelivery of grain.
Surely, the hon. member would agree that we would all want to see western barley and other feed grains supplying the deficit market in eastern and central Canada. As long as that
Oral Questions
is going to happen, that amount of grain will move and it will have to be in the system to move to that market, regardless of the particular manner of selling grain.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. It relates to an article in the Globe and Mail of Wednesday, November 22, which stated that due to a recent reorganization of the minister's department, there would be an increased waiting period to have taxpayers' problems solved.
Would the minister assure this House and Canadian taxpayers that decentralization of government operations outside of the national capital region has not led to inefficiency in his department?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Small Business)):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that I have been advised that the change in organization will not affect the efficiency with which most questions are answered, 75 per cent to 80 per cent of which are routine and receive immediate answers. A few more require recourse to the central computer files, and very few require several days to be answered through having to get out the special material that may be involved. I have been assured that the same high standard that the hon. member's constituents and others have enjoyed from outside Ottawa will be maintained.


AIR TRANSPORT
Hon. G. W. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. It arises from the minister's statement during question period yesterday that the government, rather than following bureaucratic advice on transportation policy, follows "political judgment based on an inquiry among people . . . and consultation with the provincial government."
In view of the many petitions, received from the people of western Manitoba and the government of Manitoba, will the minister review his decision not to provide jet service into western Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan, a decision that contradicts the Prime Minister's promise of May 23, 1974, during the last election and the minister's assurance that first-class air service would be in operation well in advance of the Jeux Canada Games which open in Brandon on February 12 next?
80067-281A

November 28, 1978
Oral Questions
Hod. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member misstates the situation rather seriously. Surely he knows it was not a decision of mine not to supply jet service to either the Brandon area or the Yorkton area. Indeed, I had asked for applications from airline companies to provide exactly those services. At one point in time I had those applications before the Canadian Transport Commission. In the end, in each case the application offering jet service was withdrawn by the applicant, not by any action of mine.
I still believe that the best service, in the long run, for Brandon and Yorkton would be the institution of a service that connects them with the east-west direction of the main line, likely with jet service. I have had continuing discussions with the airlines to encourage some interest on their part to come forward with that kind of application. I still stand ready to provide whatever help is required to make that kind of application work.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that it is the minister's controversial decision to have the Government of Canada purchase Nordair, rather than allowing the sale of Nordair to Great Lakes Airlines to proceed, which cancelled out the proposal of Great Lakes to provide daily jet service to the 200,000 people in the WestMan-EastSask area, will the minister instruct Air Canada, which overflies this area several times a day, to provide this service at least until a regional air carrier is available?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to the airlines about this question. I think that is as far as I really should go at this stage. I did say "airlines" in the plural, rather than in the singular. At this point in time, the appropriate thing would be for one of those airlines to make a judgment about providing this service and then to make an application before the Canadian Transport Commission. I look forward to that happening.

[ Translation]


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Yesterday, in reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Gatineau, a question which to me seems very important, the minister stated that he had not had the opportunity to read the decision of the appeals tribunal concerning persons who reached 65 before January 1, 1976, and that as soon as he had read it he would have to determine what procedure would have to be followed. Can the minister tell us today if he is aware of the decision of the appeals tribunal as regards those 65-year old people who thought they were entitled to their unemploy-

ment insurance benefits, and if so, can he tell us if he will make a statement allowing those persons who were unjustly penalized to receive their benefits in the near future?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it will be necessary for legal counsel to look at this particular decision. There will be two decisions to be taken-a legal, or judicial, one and a policy one. I want to have advice from my counsel before I reach any conclusions on the next step.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's reply, can he assure the House that, since these people have indeed been waiting for three years and that January 1, 1979 is approaching, he will at least take a decision prior to that date and make it known to the House and, if so, that he will allow these people to receive the benefits to which they are entitled? That would be an excellent Christmas gift from the minister.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: It might be a nice Christmas present, Mr. Speaker, but in some instances these individuals opted to take their Quebec Pension Plan or Canada Pension Plan payments. In effect, they would be paid twice. Under the law, there is no provision for doing that. As I said, I have read the decision: that is why I indicated there is a legal interpretation to be made respecting a decision as to whether we file a further appeal or whether a policy decision on payments can be made in conjunction with the policy of Quebec.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. It relates to the conviction and sentencing of Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones rock group.
The Solicitor General will recall questions put to him last Friday by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. It appears that the accused in this case, unknown to the judge who was pronouncing sentence, had a very lengthy criminal record, with some very serious charges resulting in convictions in jurisdictions other than Canada.
In view of the fact that this type of information is readily available to any Canadian prosecutor-out of CPIC, the RCMP computer in Ottawa-can the minister explain why the federal prosecutor in this case did not make the judge aware of Keith Richards' record? If the prosecutor did not have that documentary material on foreign convictions, can the Solicitor General explain why, when it is so readily available through the computer in Canada?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will recall that the initial question was asked by the
November 28, 1978

right hon. member for Prince Albert at a time when neither the Minister of Justice nor the Minister of Employment and Immigration were in the House. I indicated at the time I would like to have had notice of the question so that I could have checked with those ministers in order to provide the right hon. member with that information. I think the hon. member asking the question today should direct his question to the appropriate minister.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to address my question to the new Minister of Justice. He may have heard the exchange which took place with the Solicitor General.
The larger question is this: in terms of drug prosecutions against accused who are citizens of jurisdictions other than Canada, there is available through CPIC, the RCMP computer centre, documentary evidence. In view of the fact that prosecutors in cases such as the Richards case are not regular Crown attorneys but, as the minister knows, are chosen from patronage lists of lawyers who are rather well paid for doing this, can the minister explain whether it is the policy to make available to those federal prosecutors not only convictions under Canadian law but convictions that may have resulted from accusations in other jurisdictions? If that is the policy, what on earth happened in the Richards case? Why did the judge not know about this?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member there is no difference in policy between lawyers in the department and lawyers who are hired to represent the Crown in particular instances. All the information that is available, is available to the Crown prosecutor.
As far as this particular case is concerned, I will inquire and check whether the particular facts the hon. member alleges are correct, and whether the Crown prosecutor had the information which the hon. member claims he did not have. I will report to the hon. member later.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Revenue. Is it, in fact, a prerequisite that in order to cash cheques for income tax refunds, one must have social insurance numbers as identification?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I was advised about the problem of people cashing Canada Savings Bonds requiring the SIN. Frankly, I will have to inquire whether tax refunds also require that. I will let the hon. member know immediately.


John Raymond Ellis: Ten o'clock.
Privilege-Mr. D. MacDonald PUBLIC WORKS


REORGANIZATION OF DEPARTMENT AND ELIMINATION OF POSITIONS
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. I congratulate him on his new responsibilities and wish him luck.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Elgin McKinley: 
PRIVILEGE
[Stage Direction]
mr. Macdonald (egmont)-status of women-minister's STATEMENTS
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, as you are
aware, I want to raise a question of privilege arising out of the question period yesterday afternoon when an exchange took place between myself and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde), the minister responsible for the status of women.

November 28, 1978
Privilege-Mr. D. MacDonald
I wish to refer in particular to two statements which the minister made at that time. First of all, in answer to my second question, he said:
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.
The minister then went on to say, with reference to the plans and programs having to do with equal opportunity:
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.
As the minister suggested, I have raised this matter with him on a number of occasions. As far back as March 6, when we had a debate on an opposition day here, the minister made remarks referring to the programs for equal opportunity. He indicated, as reported at page 3484 of Hansard-
And for fiscal year 1977-78, on top of their annual program, the various departments had to develop long term programs, that is, five-year programs and measurable objectives.
A little later he said:
What is important is that the trend being established is a positive one. It is quite clearly established by the statistics that have been published and made available up until this time.
Inasmuch as 1 pointed out to the minister on that occasion, that the statistics up to that point were very superficial and were, indeed, only over-all summaries of a succession of departmental reports, I asked him on March 8 whether he would assist the House by arranging for the publication of the full reports of each department. As reported on page 3565, the minister replied:
I want to assure the hon. member that reports which have been requested of all departments have been filed and have been received by Treasury Board. Treasury Board has assigned officers to review these reports with the individual departments to see whether further improvements can be made in terms of plans.
I will be glad to see what information can be made public in this respect, in addition to all the information which is being made public by the Public Service Commission on an annual basis and also in appearances before the parliamentary committee.
If Treasury Board can also provide additional information to the hon. member when the estimates come, I will certainly be very happy to help: and I am sure my colleague will be very happy to make that information available. At the present time, these reports are being reviewed with individual departments by officials of Treasury Board.
Further, on March 20, again with respect to these reports and plans, the minister said:
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the President of the Treasury Board will want to expand on this. The only thing I can tell the hon. member is that we have, indeed, decided to make these figures available. I understand the President of the Treasury Board is reviewing the appropriate time and method of making them available. This is a matter of compiling and getting the information translated. As far as the availability of the information and the content of the plans of the various departments is concerned, the government has agreed to make the information available on a regular basis as soon as it is available.
After all that, Mr. Speaker, and the very definite commitment by the minister yesterday afternoon following what I can only assume is the kind of hit and run response in which the minister likes to engage on this issue, I find, on conferring with

my office this morning, that as long as one and a half months ago, in response to direct inquiries of Treasury Board officials we were told that these annual reports would not be made available. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, when I conferred again myself with a Treasury Board official today I discovered not only that there was no plan to make them available this year but that a definite agreement was made earlier this year, I think during the summer, between Treasury Board and all the various departments submitting these equal opportunity reports, not to make them public. There is apparently some possibility of publishing them next year and there will, as usual, be some kind of over-all summary which will tell us little or nothing.
I do not intend to use this occasion to deal with the minister's debating point-whether or not I provide accurate comments with respect to this matter. That is a matter for debate, as you would no doubt agree, or else a grievance on the part of one hon. member. But I am very much concerned that the minister should tell me on two successive occasions that he is making every effort to make this informatin available-he has said on two occasions that it is available-yet when I make representations directly to Treasury Board I find not only that they are unaware of these commitments that the minister has made in this House but that they have taken a definite decision in the opposite direction. I think the kind of answer given successively by the minister in this House affects the privileges of all members on a matter which I regard as being of very great importance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I think there has been some confusion between the hon. member and myself about certain aspects of this question. As he well knows, the annual report tabled by the President of the Treasury Board is a summary of the reports tabled by various departments. It has been produced this year and was published, I believe, before the summer adjournment.
As to the individual reports by departments the hon. member is quite right. These have not been released as yet and have not been made public. I am sorry if I misled the hon. member yesterday in that respect-it is obviously just stronger evidence that we should perhaps check the facts very carefully before making statements such as he himself made when he made allegations about so-called possible censorship by the Public Service Commission of an Advisory Council on the Status of Women report.
As far as my own statement of yesterday is concerned, indeed, it stands to be corrected. These reports have not been made accessible as yet but I can assure the hon. member that the Treasury Board has not made a decision not to make them public. I checked at two o'clock with the official the hon. member spoke to and he assured me that his problem was not that he had given a commitment to the departments not to make them public but that he had not told the departments when they were drafting their reports that they would be made public. So the matter is still an open one.
November 28, 1978

I have talked to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Buchanan) and have recommended to him that the reports be made available to the public. I understand the Treasury Board will take up this question and, I hope, resolve it in the way the hon. member and myself would like to see it resolved so that all these reports in the future will be made available to the public.


Mr. Speaker:: It would seem to me that, from a procedural point of view, the matter between the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde), who is responsible for the status of women, has been resolved.


MR. CROSBIE-ALTERATION IN OFFICIAL HANSARD RECORD
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege has to do with the Hansard record of a debate in this House which took place yesterday afternoon during private members' hour. I refer to page 1535 of Hansard of yesterday where we see a speech made by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin).
The subject under discussion was the Sullivan royal commission on transportation in Newfoundland. The hon. member said-I heard him say it, and other hon. members I have checked with heard him say it-
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-
I have checked this with the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre. Hansard reads as follows:
If the government will agree to reject out of hand the Sullivan royal commission recommendations-
Then the words "regarding the railway" are inserted.
-it logically follows-
That is completely different from the statement that was made. There are about 100 recommendations in that report. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre came out against them all. He may have done that by mistake.
He was picked up on that by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), who spoke right after him for about five minutes, and then by the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey), who criticized the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre for not having read the report. However, when we looked into Hansard this morning, we found that the meaning of what was said was completely changed to "recommendations regarding the railway."
The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre has told me that he did change the Hansard record. I am not accusing him of anything dishonourable because, if the Hansard office agrees, why should we not change the record whenever we like? Whenever we make a mistake in the House, we can just get the "blues" and change what we said. I remember that a
Privilege-Mr. Crosbie
month or two ago the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) changed entirely the sense of what had been said.
1 also point out that the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre, who will speak for himself, has said that he has no objection to removing those words. He will say that, but something needs to be done to see just what the rules for changing Hansard are.
In this case the meaning has been changed utterly and completely. When we look at the record, which may be useful to us in certain future activities, the meaning will have been completely changed, and I submit that that is a breach of the privileges of the members of this House.
Although the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre is willing to have those words taken out, I think there should be some check into this so that we can determine what is permitted and what is not.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I was endeavouring to get your eye, as was the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie).
In the course of the private members' hour yesterday afternoon I was speaking in support of the hon. member's motion. As usual, I did not speak from a prepared text and, as many hon. members frequently do, I went to check the Hansard report of my remarks.
I did insert the words "regarding the railway" in the sentence referred to by the hon. member for St. John's West, and if that goes beyond what is allowed, I am prepared not only to have those three words stricken from the official record of the House but also to apologize to hon. members and to Your Honour. That was what I wanted to say and what I meant to say, and if I did not say it, I have no business making that change, even though it is on the record that my party, my leader, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Faour), and others support most of the Sullivan commission recommendations. I am in that same position, the exception being the Sullivan commission's recommendations regarding the railway.
If it is the view of the Chair that the insertion of those three words, which were inserted so that that part of my remarks would be consistent with the whole purport of my speech and the motion presented by the hon. member for St. John's West, go beyond what a member should do, I am pleased to apologize and to have them taken from the record.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) has raised a matter which I think we ought to consider as being one of order as opposed to one of privilege. I think the explanation given by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) closes the door on it in terms of procedure. However, the hon. member for St. John's West has raised a larger question which is really a matter of continuing concern for the Chair, and I think it is appropriate to pause a moment and to consider the background of the experience of the Hansard reporters here, which has been an excellent

November 28, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Crosbie
experience and, over the years, an excellent service to the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will understand that their efforts are in no way qualified, reduced or diminished in their endeavour to serve the House at the present time. However, in the past, particularly recognizing that it has been a tradition of the House that speeches ought perhaps to be assisted by some notes but ought not to be given from a prepared text, it has always been a well accepted and respected practice of the House that speeches are given extemporaneously-or most of them.
Certainly during the question period when pressure is at its greatest in terms of time and tension involved in questions and answers, and when exchanges are of a nature a little more dynamic than the exchanges which take place in regular debates, there is great strain, not only on members who occupy the floor, because in the excitement of the moment the language a member uses expresses his ideas but does not necessarily translate grammatically when it is reduced to print, and it has always been an accepted practice of the House that when the editors of Hansard or the reporters prepare their reports, members have looked at them and reporters have said from time to time, "When this is reduced to print it just does not read intelligibly; it may have sounded all right, but it does not read well; do I have the sense of what was said?" That has always been done, and it has been supervised by the editors under the best principles and practices of the House in an effort to do a faithful service to the recording and, at the same time, to be faithful to the sense which was intended.
At the same time, however, this also puts a great strain on the reporters and the editors of Hansard because, after all, they are servants of the House of Commons, and when they are consulted by a member they are being consulted by someone to whom they owe a duty of service. They find it difficult to take a position and to tell the member emphatically that he has gone too far in his grammatical clean-up of the work. That is a very difficult role for reporters or editors to take. When that has happened, which, thankfully, I think has been rarely, hon. members have invariably done what the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre has done, and that is to indicate that he made a change, and that if he did more than what is allowed by the practices, he accepts responsibility, as was done on the earlier occasion mentioned. That has always been done.
That is almost the whole story, and we could go on from there, but I think we must take into account the recent introduction of electronic recording equipment and the introduction of radio and television recording which is being used quite happily and being resorted to increasingly. It is being used more than even the most optimistic estimates given at the time we were planning and installing the equipment.
However, an examination of the record through these electronic recording devices is being resorted to by more and more Canadians all the time. Therefore an additional strain is being

put on the reporting staff, who have enjoyed this editorial licence in the past. They now find themselves under the constraint of matching their record exactly with the language used on radio and television. This is a recent experience for us, and it is not an easy one for the reporters. We are adjusting to it, but when these instances take place it certainly is helpful to have them brought to our attention.
I am confident that we can go forward. Recognizing the constraints which are placed on the shorthand reporters and the additional burden of the electronic media, if we all continue to operate as we have, in the best interests of the House and in good faith, I hope the problem will not occur too often. If it does, the hon. member for St. John's West can certainly raise the point again.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon.   Monique@: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I am pleased to table in the House a report of the advisory committee of the Canada Pension Plan entitled Review of the Objectives of the CPP, in both official languages, of course, a report which will greatly interest hon. members.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 240, 264, 415 and 631.
I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Epp: 1.	What was the cost to the government for the book Shopping for Food and Nutrition?
2.	Who designed the book and at what cost?
3.	(a) How many copies will be distributed and at what cost per book (b) who will receive the book?


Yvon Pinard: In so far as Agriculture Canada in concerned:
1.	$39,158.
*

:

November 28, 1978

2.	The publication was designed by Design Partnership of Ottawa Ontario, at a cost of $5,183 which is included in the above cost.
3.	(a) A total of 134,900 copies printed by the department will be distributed at a cost of 29 cents per copy, plus postage.
(b) The publication will be distributed to various agricultural organizations and to private related institutions or agencies. The consuming public in general may obtain copies in response to individual requests. Educational institutions may obtain quantities for distribution according to their requirements.
In so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned: 1. $25,973.01.
2.	To be answered elsewhere.
3.	(a) Ninety thousand copies will be distributed at a cost of 29 cents per book, plus postage.
(b) It is directed to and will be received by the consuming public and will be distributed via social and health agencies at provincial and municipal levels, e.g. provincial nutritionists, public health nurses, and visiting homemakers. There will be direct distribution to the public upon request.


Mr. Epp: From June 1, 1974 to date, what lawyers in the Constituency of Provencher were given work by the Department of the Solicitor General and what amount was each paid per year?


Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: In so far as the legal agents of the Minister of Justice are concerned: none.


Mr. Howie: Does the Farm Credit Corporation have a list of lawyers to whom legal work concerning mortgage loans is restricted and, if so, what are the names of such lawyers in New Brunswick?


Eugene Whelan: Farm Credit Corporation advises as follows: the corporation retains the services of solicitors, advocates or notaries approved by the chairman to place and disburse loans, to recover moneys lent and to perform related incidental legal services on such terms as the chairman may prescribe.
The name of the New Brunswick lawyer through whom the corporation's legal work is handled is Clarence H. Roy.


Mr. Epp: 1.	What is the annual budget of the Western Regional Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages which was opened in St. Boniface recently?
2.	Who is the director?
3.	What is his/her annual salary?
4.	What are his/her qualifications?
5.	How many persons will be employed on a (a) full-time (b) part-time basis?


Yvon Pinard: The Commissioner of Official Languages reports directly to parliament and not through a minister. Questions can be made directly to him.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Fletcher Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I filed the required notice for this motion. The move by the Canadian Wheat Board to purchase up to 2,000 hopper cars at $100 million is an unprecedented move in the 40 years of their lifetime, and we see it as a breach of the spirit and intent of the National Transportation Act. We question the legality of the Wheat Board's action in describing these hopper cars as personal property-it is too much to figure out.
This purchase was made without the consultation of the interested parties out west. Producers are up in arms and farm organizations are outraged and, despite what the minister said, there was no consultation. The railways are telling us there is unused capacity in the system, as evidenced by Canadian Pacific's refusal to have 1,000 cars fixed. I see no other way of bringing this matter before the House. Neither our motions under Standing Order 43 nor our questions in the question period can deal with this, nor can we deal with it in the next opposition day, which is a week away and which may be too late.
Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton):
That this House do now adjourn.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton) has given the Chair notice, in accordance with Standing Order 26, of his intention to make this application for a motion to adjourn the House or, in other words, for a motion calling for a special debate on that matter, pursuant to the terms of Standing Order 26.
There are two aspects of the matter which I think I should bring to the attention of hon. members. The first is that I consider it to be a very dangerous precedent to accept this subject under the terms of Standing Order 26 on the basis that

November 28, 1978
it is, as the hon. member has described it, a policy decision or a policy initiative. The hon. member says that this is the first time in 40 years that such a move has been made and it is a policy which he ascribes to the Wheat Board or, alternatively, to the government. It is a policy which he says will have drastic effects on certain segments of the population.
My concern is that if I were to accept those conditions for an emergency debate pursuant to Standing Order 26, the hon. member would realize the frequency with which applications might be made, and I do not think Standing Order 26 was intended to take into account applications where a member wishes to disagree with a particular government policy. I would refer the hon. member to paragraph 16 of Standing Order 26, which reads:
The right to move the adjournment of the House for the above purposes is subject to the following conditions:
(a)	The matter proposed for discussion must relate to a genuine emergency
calling for immediate and urgent consideration;
It seems to me that the emergency referred to is a situation which is certainly not a matter of policy initiative or of the creation of a decision with which the hon. member wishes to express his disagreement.
I know hon. members might want to argue that there are many policies which do create emergency situations to which they might want to lay claim. Nevertheless, I would not consider the opportunity to disagree or differ with government policy should be used as a subject for this rule.
It seems to me that the whole regime of our orders, regulations and practices here, is to give hon. members, either individually or collectively, an opportunity to disagree with policy in one way or another, whether it is through questions, through motions pursuant to Standing Order 43, through questions put in the late show to get more definitive answers, through questions put to ministers in examination of their estimates before the standing committee, or through voting against items in supply. But the whole structure is to allow an opportunity to an hon. member, to his caucus or to members on all sides of the House, to express at one time or another support or disagreement with a policy.
I believe that if one policy decision is considered as a subject for an emergency debate, it would make it difficult for the Chair in future to refuse similar requests when on occasion policy initiatives are announced which obviously meet with disagreement. That goes without question. The Chair would be in a difficult spot having to refuse or grant applications for a special debate on every policy decision that was announced.
The hon. member made reference to the fact that the next allotted day is a week away, which may be too late. I have to refer him back a few days to a debate which took place on November 13 in which the following motion, put by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin), was debated. It read as follows:
That this House condemns the government for its failure:
(a) To require the railroads to add 4,000 hopper cars and 5,000 repaired
box-cars to their grain fleet; and

(b)	To give the Canadian Wheat Board total authority to co-ordinate all aspects of grain movement and any other authority necessary to protect and expand grain exports.
So the House has directed its attention specifically to this matter. It may be that the decision to which the hon. member refers has been made since that time, nevertheless it remains a policy decision, with which the hon. member has other means at his disposal to differ. I do not think policy decisions like this should be made subject to motions pursuant to Standing Order 26.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, November 27, consideration of the motion (Miss Begin) 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.
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to continue the remarks I started last evening with reference to Bill C-2. First I should like to correct for the record, and more particularly for the benefit of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), the statement he made in his speech yesterday. He referred to the policy of restraint of the Conservative party. The hon. member for Winnipeg North said:
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-
Indeed, the hon. member for Winnipeg North also stated that the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) was dishonest.
I should like to deal with just one small facet of that comment, his reference to culture, although the bill does not deal precisely with it. I should like, for the benefit of the hon. member, to refer him to page 1477 of Hansard where he will find the comments made by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) from which he will clearly see that his comment yesterday was incorrect and, although I would not say it was dishonest, it was certainly a deluded reference.
I also think-perhaps it is a view shared by members of my party and also shared by the hon. member for Winnipeg North-that, in terms of the manner in which this program will be terminated some two or three years before its time, any sensible and far thinking government would realize that the funding of medical facilities, be they research facilities, hospital training or teaching facilities, will not and simply cannot end when this bill comes into force. A natural conclusion is that there will be some form of ongoing federal support. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) has
November 28, 1978

not said that. Perhaps that position is shared by the NDP. I do not know, because I have difficulty understanding many of their positions. In terminating the fund, it is disturbing that the minister has not made any reference whatsoever to what the future holds for the research community or the welfare of Canadians, in terms of hospital care and teaching facilities.
I should like to ask hon. members to reflect on the government's decision in 1966. At that time there was a proposed expenditure of $500 million which was to be spent over a period of 14 years. In terms of the government's view of cash flow today, and the manner in which it treats the dollar, that $500 million is relatively insignificant. After all, the government talks now about a $12.1 billion cash deficit this year. So, what is $500 million? It is a shrug of the shoulders of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). But in 1966 $500 million was a very substantial sum of money. Clearly one did not expect the government to spend that amount in a short period of time. It was a bill which covered the expenditure of that amount of money over a period of 14 years.
The cost-sharing arrangement of the program roughly is 50-50. If one examines the purpose, dimensions, and the manner in which funding is initiated, clearly they demonstrate that parliament gave this bill a considerable amount of thought. I took the opportunity of reviewing the debates in 1966. They were substantial, and there were excellent contributions from all sides of the Elouse. Now the bill is being brought to a hasty conclusion almost three years ahead of the intended date, and $69 million short of the sum intended and appointed by parliament in 1966. Perhaps the most reprehensible action by the government is the decision of the minister to terminate the program without prior discussion with the provinces.
Yesterday the Minister of National Health and Welfare participated in this debate, responded to some speeches, and engaged in across-the-floor shotgunning with the hon. member for Athabasca. The minister said that there were some discussions. She did not state that there was a uniform degree of discussion with all provinces involved, whether a province still qualified for assistance under the bill or not, such as the province of New Brunswick.
The program encompassed in the original bill has been of enormous benefit to the establishment of facilities for the treatment of the sick, and for the training of those who treat the sick. One wonders what consultation occurred with the health resources advisory committee, a committee estabished by the original bill in 1966. I should like to refer to chapter 42 (11) of the Revised Statutes of Canada which reads as follows:
The advisory committee shall
(a)	advise the minister on any program for the development of health training facilities submitted to the minister by the government of a province;
(b)	advise the minister, at his request or on its own initiative, on matters relating to a health training facility in respect of which a province has requested a contribution under this act, including a reasonable cost thereof; and
Health Resources Fund Act
(c)	give consideration to and advice the minister on such matters relating to the operation of this act as are referred to it by the minister.
It is section 11(c) which I find most interesting. I should like to refer to the annual report for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977. It contains the signature of the minister, and finally it was tabled on Friday, March 10, 1978, approximately one year later. Any reference to the advisory committee in that report is absent. One wonders what role the advisory committee played in the latter years provided for in the bill.
When one reviews the history of the involvement of government in the medicare system of Canada, the health and welfare of Canada, and when one thinks of Bill C-68 introduced by the then minister of national health and welfare, the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde), one will realize that some of the points raised by the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Parent) yesterday were most valid. Indeed, the health care delivery system for Canada has progressed. If it had not progressed, those responsible would be appearing before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, and certainly parliament would be concerned if the vast expenditures were not producing a satisfactory end result.
I have served on that standing committee since 1974. I recall the praiseworthy statements, support and declarations of the Minister of National Health and Welfare which indicated that all was well.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to a document entitled "Symposium on Health Research Priorities in Canada." It is a summary of a series of papers and discussions presented on May 25, 1973, on the implications for the health care system. In the summary excerpts were taken from the remarks of the then minister of national health and welfare. One such excerpt reads as follows:
There may be those who would recommend bringing about a reapportionment of resources provided for health care research vis-a-vis bio-medical research by a transfer of funds. I am not one of them ... An appropriate balance should be achieved by a steeper rate of increase in the funding level accorded to research on health care, including its promotional and preventive aspects, compared to the rate of increase in support of more basic research.
That is what the then minister of national health and welfare said approximately four or five years ago. He continued:
Although the reasons for this lack of interest in the field of health care research are undoubtedly numerous and complex in nature ... one important factor must surely be the widespread misconception, held even in academic and other well-informed research circles, that applied research must necessarily be short term, rather superficial and related to immediate problems ... If we do not start research on a predictable problem until it confronts us in all its urgency, the research attack on it must all too often be hastily contrived and carried out in as short a time as possible, if the result of the research is to have any relevance to solving the problem before it passes into history ...
A classic example is the rather rushed implementation of studies into Asian flu which took place about two years ago.
The minister went on to say:
The time duration of an applied research project and the depth of treatment should be determined by the nature of the problem and the type of analytical study required.

November 28, 1978
Health Resources Fund Act
The minister sounds like an academic and as though he had a sudden appreciation of the research problem in 1973. There must be a reason why this minister has failed to influence or at least pass along his concerns to the present Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the former minister done a flip-flop between 1973 and 1978?
The then minister said:
As a general statement on research priorities "increases in effort and resources should be more rapid with respect:
He then goes on to list a number of priority areas of concern.
The vice-principal for the faculty of medicine at McGill University, Mr. Maurice M. McGregor, said at that time that:
Viewed within this schema the scientist had no right to complain when governments asserted their duty to direct in some areas of research.
I go along with that because, after all, parliament is paying the bill. He continued:
They had, however, every reason to expect governments to identify their problems and to subsidize the necessary research to find the answers. Since this, itself, requires expertise, it is hoped that we would soon see a major augmentation of intradepartmental research capacity.
The people at this symposium were well known in the research community. There were people such as John Evans, the president of the University of Toronto. Surely that name rings a familiar note. Others subscribing to this point of view were people such as John Laidlaw, director of the Institute of Medical Sciences, University of Toronto; the dean of the faculty of medicine for the University of Manitoba, the professor and head of the department of physiology at the University of British Columbia, and the associate dean of McGill University. These are people who are regarded highly within the community. Surely the then minister had to have his homework done when he spoke to them in 1973.
Like many other policies of this government, they suck the provinces down the road until they are committed beyond any shadow of a doubt, and then they snatch the rug out from under them because it is politically or fiscally convenient to do so. In this case it is both fiscally and politically convenient to do so. This government by its policies has now boxed the provinces in so well that it can cut willy-nilly.
Perhaps I should not say what I am about to say, but I will give the hon. member for Winnipeg North an opportunity to correct me if I am wrong, because it is not on the record of the meeting in camera with the Auditor General prior to the meeting of the public accounts committee last week. If I am not mistaken the hon. member said, "Was it necessary for the Auditor General to inquire into programs for people?" Surely, regardless of the program, without fear or favour it is the responsibility of the Auditor General to look into any program, any facet of the government's operation, whether it be designed for people or not. I hope the member will read my words carefully. I may have misunderstood or misinterpreted the comment by the hon. member, but that is the way in which it struck me. I was astounded, if that be the case, at that kind of rhetorical comment by a member of such long standing and experience in this House of Commons.

I would like to get a statement from the minister or her parliamentary secretary to the effect that when this bill is passed and becomes law that this government will then sit down in concert with the provinces and consider in what areas it must inevitably become involved in terms of future research within the medical community and all the other communities involved in health care delivery, whether they be primary or secondary modes of delivery. I would like the minister also to consider what will be done to upgrade hospitals across this country.
There are two things the minister cannot expect. One is the beautiful picture painted by the hon. member for St. Catharines of healthy Canadians who have cradle to the grave care and not a thing to worry about. The other thing is that with government cuts in funding that they can expect the provinces to carry on and deliver the same quality of health care they are presently able to deliver, because it is impossible. If the quality of health care deteriorates by virtue of budgetary constraints, provincial economic conditions, or national economic conditions, then it falls upon this government to explain why it has failed the country and the people on this issue.
There is much more that can be said about the failure of this government to live up to its commitments, and its arrogance in the face of a fiscal problem which ministers themselves generated by pulling the rug out from under programs that are good and ignoring the rug under programs that should be affected and the priorities of care for Canadians.
The other day I had an opportunity to fly across this country with a senior civil servant who happened to be with the minister's department. I will not name him, or the location of the conference he was attending or anything else, knowing the Grits the way I do, but he said that the genuine concern of those in attendance at the conference was that "our department and the ministry were top heavy with people studying other people to determine what the hell they were all doing, instead of us getting out and doing the job that Canadians expect of us." That gentleman was right on. Unfortunately the minister and the government have not got the message, and I doubt if they will until the next federal election.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The position of our party, Mr. Speaker, in opposition to Bill C-2 was well outlined by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) yesterday. I would like to spend a few minutes this afternoon talking about two different things which I think are quite important to this debate. The second is in response to what some of the Conservative members have been talking about so much, namely cutbacks and restraint. However, before touching on those subjects, I want to say that I oppose this bill.
If one looks at the programs that Canada has, there is one very glaring omission. Not enough money is going into the whole area of preventive medicine. We have done very well in many other fields in Canada including the delivery system for medicine, medicare and hospitalization, etc. We have had some great accomplishments. However, when it comes to the
November 28, 1978

area of preventive medicine, Canada, the United States and indeed most of the industrial world are lagging way behind.
I will refer to some studies that I have looked at that have been done during the past few years. One particular study was done by Senator George McGovern in the United States. In that study there is a conclusion that about seven out of ten causes of death in the United States were directly tied to diet. In other words, people are eating their way to the grave. Americans are eating far too much sugar and salt. Their intake of fats, processed and refined fabricated foods and so on, is far too high. The World Health Organization said that about 80 per cent of the causes of cancer in the world are tied to the environment. An important part of the environment includes the food that we consume.
Before the Canadian food prices review board folded up a few years ago, they said that about 40 per cent of our hospital stays were tied to diet problems. I think it was in 1975 they said that if we had proper nutrition in this country we would have saved about $2 billion a year in hospital bills. If that figure was $2 billion then, I am sure that figure will reach $3 billion or more in 1978 and 1979.
I am concerned when I hear that a government wants to cut back on medical research and the provision of money in the field of medicine. I am concerned with the whole area of preventive medicine. Radical changes in our diet have occurred over the last 25 or 30 years. If one checks into diets of people before the Second World War, one will find that an overwhelming amount of food that was eaten was what we call natural food. It was unrefined or unprocessed food, or natural food that one grew in a garden. Since the end of the Second World War we have moved into the whole area of highly refined and processed food. A lot of minerals and vitamins are taken out of the food. The effect that this is having on our health is something that we are only now just beginning to realize. It is not just the refining of food or the fact that we are eating more of our meals in restaurants, perhaps even in greasy-spoon restaurants, or even at places like McDonald's.
If one has a McDonald shake, most people think it is a milk shake containing milk. However, it contains no milk at all.
There are many things in our food system now which are totally artificial. As a matter of routine there are about 1,800 chemicals in our food system that each of us consumes each and every year. The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) consumes these chemicals as a matter of routine. It is like going into a lab and ordering about five or six pounds of chemicals and downing them. However, we do not know what effect these chemicals will have on us.
We do know, medically and technically, that roughly half of the Canadian society is obese according to the medical definition of obesity. It is well known that a lot of people suffer heart attacks now, whereas at one time there were not many heart attacks reported. People say in answer to this phenomenon that "people are living longer now." But that is not really the case. The only reason the life span is significantly longer now than at the turn of the century, is due to the fact that we have been able to combat the problem of infant mortality. However, if
Health Resources Fund Act
one takes a look at the life expectancy of a five or six year old child in 1900, and compare its life expectancy with a five or six year old child today, it is roughly the same. It is roughly the same despite the tremendous steps and leaps forward that we have made in modern medicine, surgery, health facilities, and the like. With all of this technology and medical aid which has helped save so many lives, and take away the question of infant mortality, the life span of North Americans has not really increased over the last 70 or 80 years.
I would like now to talk about some of the sprays and the chemicals they contain. I had a conversation with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) one day and I remember asking him, "What do you think about some of the sprays and chemicals that we are using in the production of our food?" I also mentioned the way chickens produce eggs sitting in little cages, being stuffed with hormones and antibiotics, and the way cattle are fattened in feed lots with growth hormones. I asked him what he thought this was doing to human health. The minister answered that he did not know but he was terrified at the thought of what might happen. He said he thought the scientists did not know either. That thought is even more terrifying to me.
I have talked to many scientists, biochemists, and people in related fields. They all said they did not know what effects there would be on human beings. Perhaps some of the cancer cases and heart attacks, as well as some modern diseases that are around today, are tied to our food system, and in the years to come the results of what we are doing now may show up in the health of human beings.
I plead with the government that instead of cutting back on money provisions to health care that it put more money into nutritional and biochemical research so that we may understand what our modern food processing system is doing to the human body. If that is not done, the rapid altering of our food is going to continue at an even greater escalated pace. The day will come when people will be eating very few natural foods and few foods that have not been exposed to chemicals. We will be so woefully ignorant of nutrition that we will have a very sick race.
The hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) interjected a few minutes ago and mentioned the comparison between a 30-year old Canadian and a 60-year old Swede. He makes a point, and it is something that we should be examining. What he says is absolutely true. If one looks at the condition of the Swedish people and their life span, or indeed if one looks at the condition of people in countries such as Israel, one will find that their food systems are different. People are more educated about the types of food they eat in their various countries.
For example, in France they allow only a few artificial food colourings in their food system. By comparison, in Canada we have dozens.
A lot of countries do not have huge supermarkets and the assembly line way of selling and buying food. Instead one finds market places where the farmers come to sell their fresh produce to the people.

November 28, 1978
Health Resources Fund Act


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: They have more respect for their stomachs.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: They have more respect for their stomachs than we do here, as the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) has said.
The hon. member for Dauphin made a point when he said that we should look at the 60-year old Swede.


Mrs. Campagnolo:: Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. member would not want to leave that remark on the record. Canada has indeed advanced over the previously sad commentary on our fitness. It is now a matter of record that a Canadian male lives one-tenth of a year longer than a Swedish male, and the Canadian female lives three-tenths of a year longer than a Swedish female. I believe that puts the lie to the old cliche about the 30-year old Canadian being in worse condition than a 60-year old Swede.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I do not dare repeat the comment from behind the curtain. I am glad to have that information. I would like to see the breakdown of infant mortality rates, health rates, and things of that sort in Sweden as well. If we have made that much progress, I am very pleased. Perhaps it is because Sweden rejected their socialist government and elected Tories a year and a half ago that they have gone backward so quickly. That is probably it. It is those Tories again.
I tried to make the very serious point that I believe this is an area of public policy in most countries in the industrialized world where things happen so quickly, that most people do not realize what has occurred. We should be spending a lot more money on medical research, nutritional research, and research on how we produce our foods, into whether we are doing the right thing, and what is happening to the soil. There are all sort of studies, such as the Rennie report, which says the quality of soil in Saskatchewan deteriorated about 60 per cent in the past 20 years or so because of modern farming.
There are many things we should be looking at, but that we are not examining. We will be taking a step backward if we do not put money into medical research, research into the human body and how it responds to the environment. I make that plea as one of two I will be making in the debate this afternoon.
The second point is that I get very disappointed when I start seeing the Liberal government implementing some of the policies of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). We hear them talk about restraint, rollbacks, cutbacks and so on. When I see someone like Joe Trudeau taking on Pierre Clark's policies, it really upsets me, because a lot of innocent people are hurt in the process.
It particularly upsets me when I see members of the Conservative party, including the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, who took my colleague from Winnipeg North to task, talking out of both sides of their mouths. They say we need more cutbacks and restraint.

Yesterday, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) said that more money must be put into Newfoundland because it has a stagnant economy. The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) wants more money for creating employment. The hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise) wants more money put into agriculture. He says there are too many cutbacks there. The hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) says that the arts are really suffering. The Indian Affairs critic says that the Indian people are being hurt by the cutbacks and restraint. Last night over television, the premier of New Brunswick said that that province is being cut back by $15 million in federal funds and that will really hurt them.
All these things are true. Therefore, we do not know where the Conservative party stands. Are they just trying to cash in on the Proposition 13 mentality and psychology that started in California? Is that what they are saying and trying to do? Do they really believe there should be severe cutbacks?
The Tories say to us in this party that we are socialists and that means big bureaucracies, huge debts in government, all kinds of government spending and the like, as well as inefficiency. I want to refer to a few facts today that the Canadian people should be aware of so that they can see at times the Conservative party speaks with a forked tongue, indeed out of both sides of its mouth.
Let us look at the per capita debt. A couple of weeks ago the Tories were saying the debt in this country is too high, that a Conservative government would lower it.


Mr. Paproski:: Are you afraid of the Conservative party?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I am not afraid of the Tories at any time. The Saskatchewan results have shown that. In the Saskatchewan campaign we told the people the facts. When the people saw what the Tory party was all about, they rejected it decisively in that province.
Let us look at the provincial debts in this country. Listening to the Tories, you would think that Tory provinces have the lowest per capita debt in Canada. When you look at the statistics, you find that in 1976 the province of Saskatchewan had an average per capita debt of $980.
What about big, wealthy Ontario, with 35 years of Toryism and, I take it, balanced budgets, no debts and so on? According to Statistics Canada, the average per capita debt in the province of Ontario is $2,059. In fact, about eight cents out of every dollar in Conservative Ontario goes to pay off the debt of that province which is held up as a model of Toryism in this country. In my province of Saskatchewan, one seventh of one cent of the taxpayer's money goes to pay off the interest charges on the debt of that province. When the Conservative party talk about debt and deficit financing, we think they speak with a forked tongue.
Look at oil rich Alberta. I am sure the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) knows very well what is happening there. He knows of the tremendous mismanagement of that economy, even though they sit on a pot of black gold in that province. The per capita debt in that province in 1970 was
November 28, 1978

$775. In 1976 the per capita debt had more than doubled to $1,880.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Is that on your research?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That is Statistics Canada information. In the meantime, the per capita debt in Saskatchewan was only $980. When the Conservative party talk about deficit financing and the debts run up by the NDP and the types of things we are talking about, I say they do not know what they are talking about. They seem to say that if you have good government programs, you should have big bureaucracy. That is not true. You can run very efficient government without a huge bureaucracy. In fact if you want to know how to build bureaucracies, look at Tory governments in this country. They are the best empire builders, the best builders of bureaucracy that I have ever seen.
Look at the statistics that are readily available from Statistics Canada. In the province of Saskatchewan, which has had an NDP government most of the time since 1944, only 1.8 per cent of the population is employed by the government. In the province of Alberta, that so-called picture of free enterprise,
2.4	per cent of the population is employed by the province. We again see that it is the Conservative party that is inefficient, the party that builds these huge bureaucracies and deficits, that imposes heavy taxes upon the ordinary people of this country. In the Conservative province of New Brunswick, it is
3.4	per cent of the population. In Nova Scotia, it is 2.3 per cent. In Canada as a whole, it is 3.3 per cent. In Saskatchewan, it is 1.8 per cent. Therefore, when the Conservative party start talking about cutbacks, rollbacks and things of that sort, the Canadian people should realize the record of that party when they are in government.


Steve Eugene Paproski: We are not in government yet.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: There is mismanagement of the economy, huge bureaucracies that are totally insensitive to the people of this country, just as that party is totally insensitive to the provinces where they govern.


Mr. Beatty:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Henry Perrin Beatty: I have listened with a great deal of interest and enjoyment to the polemics of my friend to the left. He has denounced various Conservative administrations for the size of their bureaucracies. Has the hon. member consulted with the NDP leader in Ontario, Mr. Cassidy, and was he speaking on behalf of the NDP in Ontario when discussing the size of the government in that province? Is it the policy of Mr. Cassidy to cut back on the size of the public service in Ontario?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I was not denouncing that, Mr. Speaker. I was denouncing the incompetency of the Conservative government.
Health Resources Fund Act


Steve Eugene Paproski: You are as phony as the rest of the NDP, sucking and blowing at the same time.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: There is one province which beats Saskatchewan in terms of the number of people it employs in its public service. That is Ontario, where the figure is 1.2 per cent of the population.
If you look at the tax load, I am glad you mentioned this, I can see if I can give you some of the tax comparisons between the province of Ontario and the province of Saskatchewan.


An hon. Member:: What about Alberta?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I will give you Alberta as well. Thanks for mentioning Alberta. I will take a taxpayer who is over 25, who has a spouse, who has two kids under the age of 16, who is earning $15,000, owns a home with a property tax assessment of $9,200, who is insuring a 1975 Impala with public liability coverage of $200,000 with $100 deductible-he's consuming about 600 gallons of gas a year in that 1976 Impala. Now let's have a look at the tax load on that ordinary citizen in the province of Saskatchewan, in the province of Ontario, and in Alberta. First of all, let us look at his personal income tax. In Saskatchewan it was $681 for that person. Income tax, of course, is a more progressive tax. In Ontario, the income tax is some $674. In Alberta, it is $590. That is on the income tax side.
Now let us have a look at health premiums. Health premiums in Saskatchewan are zero. Health premiums in Ontario, which are a tax, a tax which is very regressive, a tax on ordinary people, amount to $456. Health premiums in Alberta, with all that money in the Heritage Fund, are $184, which I think shocks even some of the Tory members of the House.


Mr. Murta:: Not at all.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I turn to sales tax. Alberta has us beat. They don't have any. In Saskatchewan it is $172, and in Ontario it is $264, again very heavy for a province as wealthy as Ontario. Gasoline tax-there isn't any in Alberta. In Saskatchewan it is $114. In the province of Ontario it is $114.
Car insurance-in Alberta it is $366. In Saskatchewan it is $186, and in Ontario $348.
Last but not least are tax rebates provided by the provinces in each case for the ordinary taxpayers. In Alberta the rebate amounts to $202, in Saskatchewan $230, and in Ontario it is $139.


Steve Eugene Paproski: What's the price of turkeys in Saskatchewan?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: When you do a total of all that, the tax load upon someone we think is an average taxpayer in Saskatchewan is $923. In oil-rich Alberta it is $938, $15 more. But when you come to Ontario it is not $923 but $1,717, almost twice as much imposed upon the ordinary citizens of Ontario as in the other provinces I have mentioned. I am very glad I was asked

November 28, 1978
Health Resources Fund Act
to make a tax comparison between the average people in the provinces.


An hon. Member:: What is the net per capita income after tax?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I am talking here about families with the same income. Maybe I will go over it again because I am sure the hon. member, being a Tory, finds it hard to understand.
Here is a taxpayer who is over the age of 25, who has a spouse and two children under the age of 16. He earns some $15,000, owns a home with a property tax assessment of $9,200 a year, insures a 1975 Impala with $200,000 public liability and $100 deductible, and which consumes 600 gallons of gasoline a year. So I am comparing identical families in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario. The ordinary person is getting along a lot better in Saskatchewan under NDP policies than the same person in the province of Ontario. He is even getting off slightly better in Saskatchewan than in Alberta, even when you take into account the tremendous wealth which Alberta has at its disposal.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. 1 suggest we all talk about Bill C-2.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I am very happy you interrupted, Mr. Speaker, because I never intended talking about taxes. It was only after our Tory friends asked me a couple of questions about tax levels in Ontario and Saskatchewan that I did so. Another hon. member asked me about Alberta, and then they wanted me to repeat it because they could not quite understand it. I am even happier, Mr. Speaker, to talk about health. Again, you can look at a comparison between the provinces when it comes to health care. You have to know which party has a philosophy which looks after ordinary people. It is one thing in the House to talk, but you have to look at political parties and judge politicians by what they do when they are in government.
We know what the government across the way has done. We have said many times we do not like a lot of the things it is doing. It should not be cutting back in this bill. But we have difficulty, sometimes, in knowing where the Tory party stand because they will speak out of both sides of their mouth depending upon which audience they are addressing. So I believe it is very important to look at their record in the provinces, and that is what I was doing in terms of per capita debt, the size of the bureaucracy, and the tax load. Now they ask me to talk about their hospital care record.
Let us have a look at Saskatchewan. Premiums on medicare in that province are zero, but the premiums in Ontario for a family of four are some $456 a year.


An hon. Member:: What about New Brunswick?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: New Brunswick as well. I do not have the figures. I assume they are high. They must be because it is a Tory province.


An hon. Member:: No, they are zero.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Look at the additional charges for patients. Saskatchewan does not have any additional charges, at least not now, but if we have tremendous cutbacks by the federal government then the province will have to get some money from elsewhere, and I assume they will not charge but that they will get it from resource revenue and the like. We do not have any additional charges to the people in the province, but in the province of Ontario there is an $8.60 deterrent fee for extended care in a hospital. In other words, there is a tax on the sick. I know the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) as a good Progressive Conservative, is violently opposed to such a tax-I remember his speech on the haves and the have-nots.
Look at the children's dental plan. There is one in Saskatchewan; there isn't one in Ontario. There is a hearing aid plan in Saskatchewan, there isn't one in Conservative Ontario. There is a drug prescription plan in Saskatchewan; there isn't one in Conservative Ontario. There is a plan to help people who are handicapped in the province of Saskatchewan; there isn't one in Ontario. Indeed, in Ontario they collect more money from hospitalization and medicare fees than they collect from resource revenue. I think this is a commentary on the Conservative party that every Canadian should know. Mr. Speaker, it is an utter and absolute disgrace.
One can go over all the statistics and see what the record of the Conservative party is. When they talk about restraints and cutbacks they do not mean to cut back on services to the wealthy, they are not going to cut back on their fancy tax gifts and being Santa Claus to the corporations. What they cut back, Mr. Speaker, are services to the ordinary people. They do it in areas such as the one we are discussing today, namely, medical care and hospitalization. What makes me angry is why the federal Liberal party, when they are desperate because of the results in the Gallup poll, adopt some of the policies of the nineteenth century party which sits here to my right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: There are two Tory parties. Two too many!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: There are many things that can be said about restraint, about how it affects ordinary people. Another thing that is very interesting is the unemployment statistics which have been published recently. We find that the biggest increase in unemployment in the last year has been in the province which has been beating the drum the loudest about restraint and cutback, namely, the province of Manitoba. The average increase in unemployment in that province year over year, according to the statistics for November at least, was about 30 per cent.
If the hon. member for Lisgar has figures to refute what I say, he should get up and document them. If you look at the report from Statistics Canada you will find there has been roughly a 30 per cent increase, year over year. Of the economists I have read, most of them say that a large part of that
November 28, 1978

increase is due to some of the severe cutbacks, the meat axe that Premier Sterling Lyon has taken to many decent programs in the province of Manitoba. If that is indeed the Tory policy, we should know about it before the next federal election, because we all know what the result was in Saskatchewan when people were told about Tory policy. The Tories were kept out of office in an overwhelming landslide for Premier Bla-keney. In the next federal election I am sure that when the people of Saskatchewan realize where the Tory party stands- they already know where the Liberals stand, so that does not matter-the federal Tory party in that province will be about as successful, if even that successful, as Dick Collver of the provincial Tory party in the election of October 18.
I was happy to say a few words this afternoon in this debate. I think the subject matter of this debate will be at the core of a big election issue. The issue will be the whole question of restraint, cutbacks, rollbacks, and where the Tory party stands. We know where the government stands because it is government policy we are debating. We do not like it. We are voting against this bill, but I maintain that it is very important that we know where the Conservative party stands, because Conservatives are going from one part of the country to the other and saying different things to different people, and different things in different regions.
The Tories are not saying the same things about unemployment in the province of Alberta as they are saying about unemployment in, for example, the province of Newfoundland. We should know about that. We should know where the Tories stand.
It has been a long time since the Tories formed the government. In provinces were there are Conservative provincial governments the people should know where the federal Tories stand. I think actions speak louder than words, and that is why I have taken some time to respond to some Tory questions about taxes on ordinary people, about per capita debt, about bungling, and about inefficient bureaucracies which are built by the Tory party. The biggest bureaucracies and those most prone to empire building and featherbedding are those built by the Tory party, the very party which criticizes anything which is more progressive than measures taken in the nineteenth century. These facts should be pointed out to the people of this country.


Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, at the close of this debate I would like to make a few brief remarks on Bill C-2, the health resources fund bill. Although the bill is not a major one, its subject matter is important. The minister and a number of others who have joined in this debate have dealt with it in detail, and I do not wish to repeat their remarks.
This essentially is a bill involving federal support for training and research in the health field. That field traditionally comes under provincial jurisdiction, but over a limited period of about 14 years the federal government has provided support in the amount of about $500 million. At the present time the
Health Resources Fund Act
fund is about 85.52 per cent committed. About 15 per cent of available funds are left in the fund.
I suppose we could say that this is a motherhood issue. We all agree on the worth of the program. We all support the idea of training and research in the health field, but I think the important thing here as between the two sides of the House is the matter of understanding the situation and of setting priorities. As a country we simply cannot afford all the good programs there are or of which we could think, especially in these tight economic and competitive times. I do not believe there is any serious conflict of motives between the two sides of the House. I think there is an understanding of the situation and of the priorities.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) has evoked some comment during this debate. I am thinking in terms of certain feelings the minister has about this bill which may be in conflict with the times. I think we all agree with the minister's fine human sentiments and with her support for social programs. We recognize her ability to fight for her department and for her beliefs. I think that is beyond question, but it is also beyond question that she supports this bill as a minister in a difficult and responsible position, like the other ministers in the government.
It is not easy to cut back programs. It is not easy to go into a time of restraint, particularly when we have enjoyed many good years and expansion. However, the reality is that we are in a time of restraint. Some hon. members in this House are very well qualified and have their backgrounds in health and research fields. Some of our members are physicians, chiropractors and veterinarians. Some are trained in scientific research, so there would be a natural bias in favour of research in the health field. I call on my own experience in medicine and pharmacy as well as pharmaceutical research, in making comments on a bill such as this. Naturally this bill goes against the grain. We would like to keep expanding; however, that is not our only point of discipline at the present time.
Research, particularly Canadian research in the health field, has been referred to in this debate. There is a tendency to talk about cost benefits in health research, and to some extent this is valid. However, from what I have heard it seems to me that there is a tendency to talk about successes and the cost benefits of those things which have been successful, such as the polio vaccine program. Other examples have been given. However, it seems to me that such talk is somewhat misleading, although probably not deliberate. Such talk deals with only part of the picture. It does not deal with programs which have not succeeded, and the majority of research programs in any field do not succeed in producing significant results. It does not deal with the total research picture and with how much has been invested in research. Some of our comments are very selective and very much in support of research spending.
I think back to the United States cancer program, a massive program which was announced a few years ago. The idea then was, similar to their foreign aid program after the war, that if enough money was thrown into something, good results would be the reward. There were some responsible researchers at that

November 28, 1978
Health Resources Fund Act
time who wanted support but who criticized that concept as being naive. They felt that that concept would lead to disappointment because that was not the way research worked.
There is no question that money must be involved, but what is basically needed is the right idea or a breakthrough in very sophisticated and complex scientific knowledge. One example which is often cited is in relation to my own area. At the University of Toronto Medical School two famous Canadians, Banting and Best, discovered insulin back in the 1930s. That was perhaps one of Canada's most outstanding medical discoveries, if not the most outstanding. However, it is thrown in with all the other examples, usually to indicate a need for support for medical research. However, the example itself exemplifies just the opposite. In that case a couple of devoted researchers, without any support at all-they were just allowed the use of a laboratory-and using their own funds, one summer produced a great result. That was one example of research without government or any other support.
This bill is not a major bill but it deals with an important matter. Its subject matter relates to government spending and government restraint. There are three lessons in point. One is that we have limited programs which are designed to be limited in terms of time and effects. In this case this program has almost satisfied its objectives. This matter is not far removed from the concept of sunset laws which have been suggested by many people, including some hon. members opposite.
The second point is the federal-provincial jurisdiction and responsibilities. As I mentioned before, this area should, strictly speaking, be under provincial jurisdiction. It is one area where, for the usual Canadian reasons, such as differences between provinces, temporary problems and so on, the federal government has stepped in to give support to the provinces. The provinces are usually anxious to have the feds out of their business-this is a very hot current subject. This matter is strictly under their jurisdiction and they should take it over and take responsibility for it. Of course, this matter is being resolved at present at the very important federal-provincial conferences on the constitution and on the economy.
The third point is with regard to the restraint programs in general. It involves all governments, as well as all parties, which will have to co-operate on this, despite debating techniques. There is always the question of where and how to get agreement on this. The provinces in particular are always pressing the federal government to cut back. Ironically, the greatest problem for the federal government in its spending program is the amount of federal transfer to the provinces, the amount of money the federal government returns to the provinces, according to our good colleague, the former president of the Treasury Board, now President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers (Mr. Andras).
How do we resolve the problem of waste? It will have to be taken care of by good, tight, improved management. The

information which is brought out in the Auditor General's report is useful, but it is not the entire answer to this problem.
I should like to say in conclusion that although I think a cutback such as proposed in this bill, or any other type of restraint, always hurts, and there is no question that we will always be inclined to oppose it because expansion is much more fun-that is what we had for 20 or 30 years-unfortunately it is necessary at present. There is a conflict for all of us after all these good years, but obviously this bill is necessary. I believe it was undertaken responsibly by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The best we can hope for is that that type of action, although necessary, will be temporary as our economic restraint programs begin to pay off and a healthy, expanding economy begins to allow more support in this field.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, it is with considerable interest that I rise to speak on this bill. Perhaps it is somewhat sad to have to speak about a program, which was of considerable value, being phased out. In retrospect, it seems obvious that it is really a return to the 1960s when there was a vast push by the federal government to inflict on the provinces a heavy burden in the comprehensive health care system, over provincial objections in many cases. The principle of universality was thrust on the provinces, a move which will now have to be limited. We recognize now that these plans cannot be continued. I should like to say to my friend, the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), speaking of the record in the province of Manitoba, that in the last 13 months 12,000 new jobs have been created, almost as many as the government of Mr. Schreyer created in the last three years.
Speaking of the health resource fund, it seemed like one of the better ones in that it trained people in the health professions or in occupations associated with the health professions, and in conducting research in the health field. Now that the fund is being wiped out by the federal government, the tab will have to be picked up by the provincial taxpayer or the programs will have to be deleted altogether.
It is unfortunate that the type of programs financed by this fund will fall short, and that any research program that was started in the previous three years will be wasted in view of the fact that programs are based on a five-year period. In fact, most of the programs which are in the mill, so to speak, will be of little value. Furthermore, education and research, have been the most promising fields for governments so far as health return is concerned, because the education of professionals in the area of health has brought a return over many years.
I should like to say that when the Fathers of Confederation designated the provinces to care for the health, welfare and education of their citizens, they chose very wisely. The strains on confederation in the last ten years can be directly attributed to the move of the federal government into the tax Field through income tax in order to finance the federal government's incursion into health, welfare and education, areas which rightly belong to the provinces. Previous Liberal administrations have inflicted on our citizens grandiose health plans which we find we cannot now sustain. The federal
November 28, 1978

government is washing its hands of the dollars needed for health care and allowing the provinces to make do as best they can, all the while attempting to force on the provinces expanded language training, thus moving into areas under their jurisdiction.
I would like to use this opportunity to discuss some of the problems associated with medical practice and health care. This bill only deals with one small portion of health care, but I should like to point out the differences between the health professions and the government and the direction of medical care in this country. Also, I should like to point out some means by which we might avoid some of the bad features of the socialized government health care system which we have at present. Although 1 will speak mainly of physicians in the health care field, I would like to include also other professionals involved in the health care delivery system. When I use the term physician, other disciplines in the health field are included.
There are many points of conflict between doctors and politicians, but the most fundamental one is their differing attitudes toward individual patients. Doctors who devote their professional lives to the care of patients like to feel that they have a duty to their patients on an individual basis in a one to one relationship. This is where the conflict arises between the attitude of the doctor and that of the politician who claims to have a much wider responsibility for the health of the people, so that he is not primarily interested in providing the best possible care for individual patients but is more interested in providing that care for as many people as possible, within the constraints of the available resources. The tension between the groups arises because of the demands of the individual and the priorities of the doctor, and the demands of the group and the priorities of the politician.
Politicians and doctors in their respective ways attempt to act for the good of individuals, but the doctor's action is a narrow one while the politician's is much broader. The conflict between the two groups may be summarized thus: the politician wishes to ensure that scarce skills are used for the general good, while the doctor who is confronted by a sick patient sees the good of the patient as the dominant factor. Doctors struggle for what they consider to be professional freedom and independence, whereas politicians put the need of public provision and public decisions over private decisions in health care.
Mr. Enoch Powell, the minister of health in Britain in the previous Conservative administration, has pointed out that one of the basic attitudes of the medical profession is respect for the independent and individual professional judgment made for the benefit of individual patients, whereas the politicians' concern is with the general consequences of individual decisions or, as he stated:
The politician practices the subordination of individual judgments, while the doctor glories in the development and exercise of it.
There are other aspects to the politician. Politicians can achieve nothing without power, and in order to attain power in a democratic society they need votes. To win votes, they must convince the voters that their programs are worthy of support.
Health Resources Fund Act
Therefore it is easy to see that in the decades gone by, packages of health care programs, growing greater and more elaborate, have strained our resources, along with other transfer programs, to the extent that one-quarter of every dollar spent by the federal government has to be borrowed. Certainly this cannot continue. Of course politicians must be concerned with the health of the nation in broad terms. The scope of modern medicine is so broad and costly, and the expectations of the public so high, that politicians have become more involved in health care programs, particularly where there appear to be inequities both in terms of access and in the ability of individuals to provide for their own medical needs.
It is interesting to note that in the United Kingdom the dialogue between doctors and the state has been a long and continuing battle. Medical physicians in the United Kingdom have been attempting to preserve some independence, while the state has attempted largely to control their actions and limit their freedom of treatment. One of the great difficulties was the approach of the state to health care programs. The conventional feeling was that poor health is the direct result of poor medical care, and that if the health of the nation could be brought up to standard, then the need for medical treatment would diminish. But time has proven that the demand for health and medical care is insatiable, and that we can expect ever-increasing demands on the nation's resources of money and workers to feed this persistent expanding demand.
Medical care brings with it infinite demand on finite resources. Furthermore, it brings to the political side the necessity to make decisions as to whether primary care should be provided. Should primary care be provided by an office staffed with highly and expensively trained doctors, or should this be done by less trained and presumably cheaper professionals? Should there be increased services for the elderly and infirm? In what manner should these increased services be carried out?
At the present time there is a drive to reduce acute care beds on the basis that they are expensive and unnecessary. But, in practice, acute care beds are occupied by the productive age group of society. Keeping them out of hospital beds only prolongs their absence from work. Outpatient treatment is now in vogue. In the days of fee for service medicine, outpatient treatment was a means of saving money. But it has its drawbacks: how can we expect many people to drive 50 miles in order to attend at a hospital each morning?
Medicare and hospitalization have been installed for a number of years. They were patterned on the private experience previous to the inauguration of the health care program. But so many years have passed now that the experience of private medicine has been blurred and no longer provides signposts for guidelines. New planning must come into effect, and it must be done by people who have little actual contact with the medical world for which they will be responsible. It must come from either Ottawa or the provincial capitals. With the thrust of the bill before us, it would seem that Ottawa is

November 28, 1978
Health Resources Fund Act
tending toward getting out of this area. In the long run it will be good idea, but it poses a number of problems.
At the present time we have reached a situation where the health care system requires reorganization. Some questions must be asked. How can the health care program be constructed and administered? We must decide on the global sum available to finance such a program. How will the global sum be apportioned regionally and locally? How can individuals attain access to the system? How will physicians and others in the system be paid? In what manner will they be paid?
The obvious disadvantage of such a system is that political expediency may make the state decide to construct a health care system which does not recognize the genuine needs of patients. Because health care is more infinite in its demands and resources are finite, perhaps politicians will have to minimize expenditures on health care so that other social policies can be pursued. Politicians run from one social program to another expending their energies, particularly in an attempt to ingratiate themselves with the electorate. An attempt at distributing resources to provide an adequate level for all certainly will downgrade the maintenance of high standards and threaten excellence. The creation of a monopoly in health care will remove freedom of choice almost completely, except in a few cases.
What about physicians themselves? Individually patients usually trust their physicians, but society as a whole does not care much for doctors. Of course doctors are no different than any other professional. I should like to refer to what Samuel Hartlip once wrote of Puritan times. It reads as follows:
The liberty of our Commonwealth is most infringed by three sorts of men- priests, physicians and lawyers. The one deceives man in matters belonging to their souls, the other in matters belonging to their bodies, and the third in matters belonging to their estates.
Indeed the profession seemed to be under some kind of attack. Now some suggests doctors must administer a proper professional altruism, while others think the public expects too much of doctors. In a general way, perhaps society expects doctors to display unalloyed altruism, and indicates surprise and indignation when doctors take on the habits of the larger society of which they are a part.
Students of the welfare state have expressed some views as to where we are going. One suggestion was that the welfare state, as we understand it, more properly should be called "the entitlement state". People accepting welfare from the state now feel they are entitled to a considerable portion of the nation's largesse, regardless of their contribution to it. Perhaps it can be described as the expectation of the ultimate responsibility of public authority that individuals are not permitted to suffer persistent deprivation and despair. We have reached the stage where we feel no one should be deprived, but this poses a challenge to both freedom and responsibility.
One can well ask how we can revive and preserve in an entitlement state the sense that rights must be earned. Entitlement is not a one way street. Society demands a contribution to the whole, not each individual securing for himself as much as he can. The transition from a welfare state to an entitlement
state will result in great disruption of benefits, unless individuals capable of accepting responsibility for their welfare are encouraged to do so.
I would regard this bill as a high water mark. In a sense it can be used to signal a new era. It can be used to ensure that those who can afford to provide their own health benefits will do so at their own expense, either totally or partially.
The criteria laid down by the federal government in many cost-shared programs always were too rigid. Many provinces had different plans to limit and provide control over the infinite demands of free health care service. Even though the federal government still provides a large amount of money, it should loosen demands and constraints in order to allow the provinces leeway to innovate and make health care delivery systems suitable to peculiar circumstances and regions.
The retention of the fee-for-service provided a much better method of payment to physicians than a total salaried or a per capitation service. A salaried system would be inappropriate because it is very difficult, as we are now finding within the civil service, to measure productivity. At one time it was thought that fee-for-service would be expensive and make for excessive medical income, but it seems to have turned out just the opposite. Medical fees have not risen as fast as the wage structure has in the early 1970s. Those who practice in offices have had their overheads substantially increased to the point where 50 per cent of their gross fees now go to overhead expenditures, as compared with 35 per cent a few years ago. Nearly all the offices of which I am aware have had little increase in actual dollars in the last few years, and if you consider inflation they have suffered a decrease in their income. This has resulted in the migratrion of physicians to the United States, particularly those who are ambitious, energetic and perhaps individualistic and who have generally found that the practice of medicine in that country has less bureaucratic interference, and that they can practice a better standard of medicine in their own individual way.
Under the present fee structure in Canada it is impossible for a physician to spend much time with an individual patient and still have a high enough income to make the profession worth while. Many doctors have stated that each year they average one or two more consultations per day. An older practitioner once said there is no way under the present fee structure that he could give the time he would like to give to individual patients and still make an adequate income or even keep his office overhead at bay. Nevertheless, the fee-for-service system has allowed physicians to give extra service and consultation to patients who wish it over and above what the medical plans allow. The plan has allowed these physicians to charge extra, enabling them to limit this demand and at the same time satisfy their patients' requests for greater care. Perhaps the provincial agency could encourage physicians who wish to practice in this manner to take on patients who may wish the extra care.
[Mr. Ritchie.)
November 28, 1978

However, there is a tendency for bureaucrats to be suspicious of both physicians and patients who depart from the accepted pattern. Doctors are limited in practising outside the plan even though there is a demand for their services over and above what the plan allows. In fact if this demand grows, it indicates, presumably, that either fees are too low, the government's pay is too low, or that there are not enough physicians to go around.
As I said, Canada has lost some of its doctors to the United States. I do not consider the loss serious, however, because we are probably in an oversupply situation, and with the immigration of doctors into Canada from other parts of the world, I am sure that we have adequate numbers, even though they may not be distributed quite the way people would like.
At the hospital level, it is obvious that great changes are taking place and that bureaucratic administration, of necessity, seems to be an all-encompassing grey blanket over the time of physicians and other health care professions. I would estimate that fully one third of a physician's time in a small general hospital is taken up with paper work, which takes away from the medical treatment for patients, but seems to be necessary to get through the bureaucratic jungle of a hospital. The accreditation service of hospitals may have originally been a help, but it has created a vast waste in terms of the time of physicians, management and other staff within the hospitals, who must get ready for the visit of the often uninformed inspector who comes from an entirely different environment.
It seems to me that hospitals should be encouraged to set aside a small number of beds for patients who desire privacy or admission at their convenience and are willing to pay for it. I have already stated that there is an infinite demand for medical service today, but only finite resources. The rate charged for those wishing these special services would have to be high enough to return to the hospital enough extra income to provide for some of the amenities, but more than that, would provide extra funds at the administrative level for their own use. One of the great difficulties of hospital management is that they have no money to spend on their own, but are controlled by the provincial paying agency.
Of necessity, health care and health decisions must be made by managers who are not themselves health professionals, and it is difficult for them to understand the rationale of health decisions. The management of hospitals and general medical care must become more divorced from the day to day operations of medical care. Unless conditions change, many professionals now in the health care field will leave and take up other endeavours where the pay and conditions of work are better and where they would not have to work under a non-understanding bureaucracy.
I am glad that I have had this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to put on the record some of my thoughts with regard to health care, of which this bill forms a small part.
Export Development Act



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
SUBJECT MATTER OF QUESTIONS TO BE DEBATED The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier): 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 Halton (Mr. Philbrook)- Health and Welfare-Request government reconsider cut in family planning grants program; the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway)-Urban Affairs-Interdepartmental committee to study urban affairs; the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom)-Grain-Movement of grain-Purchase of hopper cars.
It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills, notices of motions.


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt) moved: that Bill C-205, to amend the Export Development Act (mining business), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my bill, C-205, is to exclude mining companies from the application of the Export Development Corporation, a very straightforward proposal and a rational approach to a serious problem.
I am sure that there is no question in the minds of many thousands of Canadians that we face a crisis in this economy when workers in Stewart, British Columbia, in the riding of Skeena, are laid off because the mine is closing down. The situation is further illustrated when Inco announces a lay-off of 3,000 people, when Falconbridge cuts back its work force, when Alcan closes its flourspar mine in St. Lawrence, Newfoundland and moves to Mexico, and when Inco moves to Guatemala and Indonesia, when Buchans in Newfoundland is threatened by Arco that they will be closing down their operation, when Thompson workers are affected by lay-offs. There are many workers who recognize that there is a crisis in the economy.
I believe all Canadians recognize that we have a serious problem with respect to unemployment in this country. It seems to me that the government has a serious responsibility having given so much of the Canadian tax dollar and so much Canadian property to so few in terms of the mining companies. The quid pro quo would be more employment generated as a

November 28, 1978
Export Development Act
result of those particular handouts. Indeed, we do have a serious problem in the mining and manufacturing industry in Canada.
I found some very interesting reading in a book put out by the federal Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. The book is entitled "Mining to Manufacturing-Links in a Chain". I thought the title was excellent because it shows that mining and manufacturing really are links in the same chain. The writers of the publication set out to have a look at the situation as it exists in Canada and to find out how many jobs were lost because we did not do enough manufacturing, and what could be gained if we started to do the work here. To quote from the book:
Canada exports large quantities of relatively unprocessed materials and in return imports more highly fabricated products, and consequently, exports goods producing relatively low economic impact while importing goods are potentially high economic impact.
There was an example given of the mining sector. It said:
There are apparent opportunities for proportionately much greater economic benefits to Canada from all the major mineral commodities if mine output were metallurgically processed and fabricated either for export or to replace imports.
The specific example of nickel was given as follows:
Thirty-eight per cent of the total fabricated nickel supply is imported.
Does the seriousness of that statement impact on us at all?
The book continues:
Approximately 10 per cent of nickel primary supply is imported.
It was also stated that 83 per cent of nickel was exported by the second or smelting and refining stage. What all of this boils down to is about the same thing that we have been saying all along on this side of the House. We are exporting raw materials. Along with those raw materials we are exporting jobs. We are exporting jobs in the manufacturing sector to those countries that refine and use our minerals in industry and in turn sell those finished products back to us. We are talking about a rather vast amount of money and hundreds of thousands of jobs.
In Canada the value of non-fuel mineral production reached $8.2 billion in 1977. That came to 4 per cent of our gross national product. Now consider that the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in its book has already admitted that we export our raw materials and import manufactured goods. Consider also it was stated in the book that ten times as much labour was required at the fourth level of production, say the making of copper pipe, as is required at the first level, or mining. Consider that four times as much work and labour are required at the third level which might be, for example, fabricated nickel, as is required at the mining stage. When all of that is taken into consideration, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that we do have a great potential for jobs in Canada. Indeed, it amounts to hundreds of thousands of jobs.
It is equally clear that this country lacks any sort of long-term planning and development of an industrial strategy that will put Canadians to work and create hundreds of thousands of jobs. The book graphically describes that this feat

could be within our grasp. The export sector of our economy is an integral part of that kind of long-term planning. Incidentally, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) dismissed this out of hand the other night when he brought down the budget. When we permit the export of capital from Canada we are ensuring that we are locked in forever into a cycle of ripping out resources and shipping them abroad, and along with those resources we ship out the jobs.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) has said repeatedly that we have a kind of co-ordinated strategy. On June 20, 1978, when I said in this House there was no co-ordinated strategy, the minister said, "It is being co-ordinated". That, Mr. Speaker, is not true. We do not have any kind of long-term strategy, let alone a co-ordinated one. That is the problem which my private member's bill meets. We are trying to prevent this kind of fiscal adventurism by foreign mining companies, multinational in nature, beyond the borders of Canada at this particular time, in our development of the mining industry. We are not talking about nickels and dimes. We are talking about billions of Canadian dollars which are being diverted out of the country to develop foreign mines which at some point will compete with Canadian mining industries. There can be no question that this will have a detrimental effect on the Canadian economy.
There can be no doubt that as we set up loans to sell mining equipment to Panama, what we have is a trade-off between the gain of short-term manufacturing jobs in Toronto at the expense of long-term mining jobs in such places as Stewart, B.C., the Sudbury basin, Thompson, Manitoba, and in Newfoundland. The list goes on and on.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce made the point obvious to me in a letter he wrote on August 31, 1978. I had previously written to the minister criticizing the EDC loan to Panama which was made to develop copper resources of Panama. The Minister said this in his letter:
A project such as the one in Panama cannot be completed over night. By the time the Canadian companies involved and EDC have made the most careful assessment of risks, analysed feasibility studies, applied the strict rules we have concerning Canadian content of any of the equipment, machinery or services in connection with such a venture; planned the project, shipped the machinery, installed it, ensured that the right infrastructure is in position and handed it over, many years will have gone by. We must not look at the situation in 1978, but rather in 1983 or even later.
That is exactly the point, Mr. Speaker. It is indeed unfortunate that this government and the Export Development Corporation are not looking into the future of what the development of one of the world's largest copper projects will do to our own copper mining industry. The billions of dollars we are investing now have both long and short term effects. There is no denying that the support for exports does provide jobs. EDC does an ample job of showing this money which they send out of the country does produce short-term manufacturing jobs in Canada, and we cannot object to the jobs they create. We have no objection to finished rails being shipped to Mexico for its railway system. We cannot object to the EDC selling components to Brazil for a hydro system there. We have no quarrel with that.
November 28, 1978

Let us look at some examples and keep in mind the shortterm and long-term benefits. The one most prominent example is Inco. Inco is involved with the development of lateritic nickel in Indonesia and Guatemala. In fact Inco's Guatemalan operation went on stream on July 12 of this year and will produce 25 million pounds of nickel annually. The Export Development Corporation supported those two developments in Guatemala and Indonesia to the tune of $77 million.
Here we have a situation in which Inco has laid off thousands of workers this year in Canada while at the same time bringing a new nickel source on stream. We must keep in mind that the Guatemalan operation will lose money this year because of the process being used. Inco, however, has guaranteed that the product will be sold at a price that will bring a return to the Guatemalan economy. That statement is supported by the Latin American Economic Report, and I quote:
Since 1973 the price of oil and worldwide inflation have raised production costs above the world nickel price, forcing Inco to give guarantees that all output would be sold at a price which would allow the Guatemalan company to cover its financial obligations until they were paid off.
Isn't that wonderful? This large multinational mining company is presently laying off workers who are on strike because they are crying poverty. They only made $100 million last year in their profit. In the third quarter, they only made $67 million net profit, yet they cried poverty. They cannot afford to pay their workers a decent wage even though they originally allowed to build up a stockpile of over a year's supply of nickel.
That company has fled Canada and is developing the resource in Guatemala and Indonesia. Lo and behold, who is there helping them-the Export Development Corporation! I know the parliamentary secretary will argue that that loan of $77 million created some jobs. Sure it did, but where are those jobs?


Frank A. Philbrook: In Canada.


John R. Rodriguez: Those jobs are in southern Ontario, in the golden horseshoe.


Frank A. Philbrook: That is in Canada.


John R. Rodriguez: It is not in northern Ontario where the stuff is mined. That is where the people suffer. That is where they are laid off. I wish the hon. member from southern Ontario who has the temerity to interject from time to time would make a speech.


Frank A. Philbrook: 1 will.


John R. Rodriguez: None of these workers can leave the Sudbury basin and pick up a job in southern Ontario. That is a dangerous situation. We have not developed the mining industry in this country to maturity. We do not have the infrastructure to develop the resource to a finished product. That is where the jobs are. They are in finishing the raw resource, not shipping it out.
Export Development Act
Every time the Export Development Corporation makes a loan to a multinational mining company for it to develop its resource abroad, it does us considerable harm down the road. That is compounded by the announcement in the budget speech that the mining companies will now get a 100 per cent write-off on the development of new mines. Those policies are superimposed on a situation where we have developed over the years and will continue to develop as hewers of wood and drawers of water. I cannot see any attempt to turn that around. It would be better, as recommended in the booklet of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, to go from mining to manufacturing. It is a chain. It is interconnected.
Recognizing that, would it not have been logical for the Minister of Finance to have given the 100 per cent write-off on developing the infrastructure at the source where the resource is mined to take it to a finished product? Would that not have made more sense? It would have at least indicated that we are trying to break out of this vicious cycle of ripping out stuff and shipping it abroad. We cannot go on in that way.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) comes up with doling out more Canada Works money. Does that make sense, shoving it one end and allowing a rip-off program at the other?
How do you justify the Department of Economic Expansion, which has designated areas, pumping out money to industry to go into those areas, while at the same time the Export Development Corporation is inciting corporations to stay and in fact expand in the golden triangle? If you look at those new programs, you see that one negates the other. It does not make any sense.
I now want to touch on the Panamanian deal. That is quite an interesting situation. It is a real rat's nest. There we have one of the world's largest copper deposits.
Let us look at the firms that have been involved there. Canadian Javelin first opened the project. John Doyle was the promoter of the Canadian Javelin Company. Later on Noran-da became involved. Note all these good corporate patriotic citizens. Guess who finally ended up managing the whole shebang? Guess who is doing that while enjoying a nice 20 per cent equity in the project? It is none other than Texas Gulf Incorporated. What is a nice Canadian Development Corporation Company like that doing in such a den of snakes? Canadian taxpayers own that company through the Canadian Development Corporation. One would expect that corporation to be dedicated to creating jobs in Canada. I do not understand it.
The minister says that operation will go into effect in 1983. It will compete in the area of jobs with the Canadian copper industry which does not have the infrastructure strength that it ought to have at this time.
I see, Mr. Speaker, you are giving me the signal like horses coming through the gate for the start. I will, therefore, conclude. The argument we make is that the mining sector should be excluded from the provinces of the Export Development Corporation. Jobs are at issue. An infrastructure around the

November 28, 1978
Export Development Act
mining sector in this country is important. If the EDC has money to lend, it ought to be loaned for the development of that sort of infrastructure and to develop those kinds of jobs in Canada.


Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the Export Development Act voted in 1969 gave extensive powers to the corporation, which was in a position to borrow, deal with or provide security for loans, conclude insurance contracts, grant export credits and provide guarantees for export and investment operations abroad. I think that the best way to proceed is to analyze its activities and their effects in each sector.
Let us begin by the export loans area. Those loans are granted to importing countries to enable them to purchase goods and services from a Canadian supplier. It makes it possible to preserve if not to create some jobs. In 1977, the value of export financing exceeded $1 billion for the first time. This was an increase of 30 per cent over the 1976 figure which amounted to $736 million. Canadian export sales made possible by those loans were beneficial to more than 50 exporters and over 250 main subcontractors under 42 agreements signed with 22 countries. That money is not going out of the country, it is used to pay for the purchase of machinery manufactured in Canada which will serve in the development of these projects. As far as the export credit insurance program is concerned, this service offers to Canadian export companies general or individual insurance policies which cover any risk which commercial insurance companies do not cover. Among these risks, let us mention wars that might start in the importer's country, default in payment by the foreign purchaser of Canadian services and products, and so on.
These insurance policies favour the export of Canadian goods and eliminates certain risks which unfortunately do exist in some countries. Mr. Speaker, in 1977 the balance of insured exports reached the record level of $1.45 billion. The increase in the value of exports insured in 1976 is about $100 million. Moreover, the corporation offers services to companies wishing to invest in foreign countries, which allows Canadian businessmen to invest without worrying about policies which could jeopardize their investments.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to call the attention of the House to the fact that the corporation is relying more and more on international money markets as a source of funds. Which means that it is borrowing abroad to lend abroad. The result of this, as far as Our balance of payment is concerned, is to transform a credit operation into a cash operation. Thanks to this new procedure, the corporation need no longer borrow from the consolidated revenue fund, as it used to.
I should like to remind hon. members that this Crown corporation is a profitable venture, as its net benefits for 1977

amounted to $18.7 million, an increase of 6 per cent over 1976. Our per capita exports amount to $2,000 and represent approximately 22 per cent. Canada ranks among the top countries of the world which rely most on their exports. In 1976 it could become the seventh largest exporting country of the world for the value of its exports and the second for its per capita value.
This clearly demonstrates the importance of our exports and of the part the Export Development Corporation must continue to play to help our country create new jobs and realize its trading potential.
We must rely more and more on the export of goods and related services to ensure our economic growth and reinforce our industrial sector. I have often heard hon. members say in the House that our manufacturing industries could not sustain competition or that our deficit was way too big in view of the products manufactured here. Surely, the Export Development Corporation has helped enormously to increase the exportation of our manufactured products.
The EDC is probably the most misunderstood corporation in Canada. Many members opposite and many Canadians do not really understand the government and the EDC role. A few months ago there were lay-offs at Inco. Deep concern was expressed because Inco had built nickel mines in Guatemala and Indonesia and it was said that in some way this resulted in fewer jobs for Canadians. In this particular case, EDC granted approximately $20.75 million for the Guatemala mine and $57.25 million for the Indonesia mine.
I will explain what really happened. The project was well underway and Inco came to EDC to obtain financing guarantees. It stated it would buy about $1 million's worth of goods in Canada. EDC accepted that amount as being sufficient and, after many discussions, finally obtained that the other party agree to purchase more goods manufactured in Canada, in fact up to $60 million worth of them. About $900 million were spent on the project and nickel mines were opened up in both countries thanks to financing advanced by Japan, Germany and Great Britain. On the other hand, EDC gave assistance by selling mining equipment in both countries. We sold for 4,800 man-years of work in Canada, which is why I can say that EDC thus creates jobs.
Here is another example of the work performed by the Export Development Corporation, with a view of creating jobs in Canada: On April 5 last, the biggest insurance contract ever for a company, covering sales for $1 billion, was signed by Bell Canada with Saudi Arabia; that figure includes $250 million in guarantees and $180 million in export credit guarantees. That sale will represent no less than 2,500 man-years of employment for Canadians. I am giving you those few specific examples to give parliament and our fellow citizens an idea of what EDC really accomplishes.
On March 9, 1978 it agreed to make loans for a total amount of $57 million towards the sale to Argentina of
November 28, 1978

technical and mining equipment estimated at $67 million made by the Canadian companies Sandwell and Company Limited of Vancouver, and SNC-Rust Limited of Montreal. There again, those decisions led to the creation of an incredible number of jobs in Canada. On October 3, 1978, EDC announced that it had agreed to lend $218 million to H.A. Simons (Overseas) Ltd. of Vancouver, to help it build a pulp mill in Czechoslovakia. The following day, Mr. Speaker, it announced that it had set up an important line of credit, for $1.2 billion, with Algeria, which will allow the creation or continuation of Canadian jobs, for Canadians, in the country. Small business profit as much by these operations as large ones. For example, one need only refer to the list of subcontractors for the steel mill project on the Raritan River, in Perth Amboy, New Jersey.
Suppliers include Provincial Crane Limited of Niagara Falls, which will supply $2.6 million worth of cranes; the Lake Ontario Steel Company of Whitby which will supply $461,000 worth of steel reinforcements; Canadian General Electric of Scarborough which will supply $1,780,000 worth of main control continuous current motors and thus create 77 man-years of work; Whiting Equipment Ltd. of Welland will supply a $1,521,000 electric arc kiln; Concast Canada Limited of Montreal will supply a $2,230,000 molding machine and Brown Boveri Canada Limited of Pointe-Claire will supply $1,730,000 of electric systems and controls and thus create 54 man-years of work.
Here are other companies who took part in similar operations.
The EDC helped Versatile Manufacturing Limited of Winnipeg, shipyards both on the east and west coasts, and mining and nickel industries in Ontario. In fact, it helped substantially the nickel industry. If we are to encourage our secondary industries, we need agencies like the EDC. All the large exporting countries have exactly the same type of agency. Anyone who has the slightest idea of what economics are all about knows that it is ridiculous to question that corporation, perhaps to ask for its abolition, to refuse to export machinery and equipment to countries like Poland.
We would not leave our industries to their own fate on world markets where they will have to face the American EX-IM or Japanese, German and French financial companies; they need the help of a similar agency. The EDC works hard to help Canadian manufacturers, just like EX-IM helps U.S. manufacturers and financial companies help Japanese, German and French manufacturers.
The main criticism levelled at the Export Development Corporation concerns the fact that it is used to finance industries which compete with those already established in Canada. Since certain people and certain parties have left Canadians with the false impression that by financing Canadian industries in other countries, the EDC somehow contributes to the loss of jobs in Canada, I believe it is important to refute this
Export Development Act
immediately in the House. Major capital projects will be implemented in Indonesia, Poland and Iran whatever happens, with or without Canada's participation.
These projects will be launched. Third world countries and other developing countries will build their own paper plants. If they have nickel or copper deposits, they will not be content to do nothing about them.
If my friends in the opposition do not agree with me on this point, if they refuse to admit that these projects will be seen through with or without our participation, if they wish Japanese, West German or British companies to become established throughout the world while ours remain in Canada, let them say so! Let the Japanese, the West Germans and the British open up mines in Indonesia and Guatemala. Let them submerge us with their capital while we do nothing and refuse to invest in industries which could compete with our own. When they suggest that capital projects in Poland, Iran and Indonesia would not be carried out without the participation of Canada, they are misleading Canadians. These projects will become reality whatever happens. The only issue is whether Canadian manufacturers will benefit from a part of these projects. It is only a matter of allowing them to participate.
There is no alternative. We must simply decide whether Canada will participate in certain projects and whether employment will be created because of this participation. It is ridiculous to pretend that these financing programs reduce the number of jobs in Canada. This may create a certain competition for Canadian products, but if Canada did not participate in these projects, this competition would come from Japan, Germany or the United Kingdom. Their plants manufacture the material. You either take advantage of it or think we are poor economists. In this era of instantaneous world communications, locally minded people do not go very far. Indeed, the figures speak for themselves. The Export Development Corporation is a Crown corporation of which Canadians can be proud. The good reputation it has all around the world is shared by Canada and all its people. In addition, through its operations it contributes a lot to the industrial and economic expansion of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) speaks of industrial strategy and coordination, I say to him that this government in the past two years got on the best track with respect to coordination, and the appointment of Mr. Andras to the new department is a concrete sign of that. But it is easy, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Nickel Belt does, to sit around a table with good wine and theoretically write the best industrial strategy. But in that respect, I think my experience is somewhat broader than his, and I ask him to table a serious document really showing us what to do. Did we not do enough through the interventions of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in his own area, in the case of the investment by Ford, among other things? Coming from Quebec, I can easily imagine the frustra-
1588

November 28, 1978
Export Development Act
tion of the people of Sudbury at not getting that project. But, Mr. Speaker, we offered a clearly more substantial amount to that company to go and locate in a designated area, whether it be Quebec or Sudbury, and they refused. Economic planning the way the hon. member for Nickel Belt would want to have it is the best way precisely to see our investment go away.
The haphazard socialism of the hon. member for Nickel Belt should be a disgrace to many other members of the New Democratic Party who do not share at all the same point of view as the hon. member for Nickel Belt. Fortunately, that party has members with another and clearly more practical approach than that hon. member who is only trying to get elected by blaming it all on a company, a Crown corporation, and thinking that by getting everyone upset in his riding he is going to get re-elected. I will be looking for him in the next election campaign.


Frank A. Philbrook: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to add a few comments in the debate on Bill C-205 proposed by my friend, the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). The hon. member seems to have a one-track mind: right train, wrong track. Or to put it a little more diplomatically, he has a single-minded approach to the subject of the Export Development Corporation. The questions he has raised here today are not new. He raised them during the debates on Bill C-47 in May and June of 1977 and on Bill C-36 in April, May and June, 1978. He has asked the same question dozens of times and has received the answer dozens of times. Just for my friend's sake we will try it just once more.
The hon. member seems to believe that Canada can arbitrarily influence other countries to cease developments if we refuse to supply them. We do not have a unique technology. If we do not sell, others will.


John R. Rodriguez: Let's develop our own first.


Frank A. Philbrook: I will elaborate on that point in a few minutes. On the other hand, one thing I would like to know is how the hon. member and his colleagues in the New Democratic Party, with its humanitarian posture, feel about development and jobs in less privileged countries than Canada including-and I say this respectfully-his own place of origin, Guyana.
Let us look at what the Export Development Corporation does. It is probably the most written about and talked about Crown corporation-favourably-and probably one of the least understood. First, let me describe what it does not do. It never gives away money, never subsidizes anyone for any reason, never lends money to Canadian companies, is selffinancing and is not in the aid business.
According to EDC brochures, its goal is to facilitate Canadian export trade through the provision of loans, insurance and foreign investment guarantees. Its insurance covers many risks. It can be protection against non-payment for

goods and services by foreign buyers, covering either commercial risks, bankruptcy, insolvency, repudiation of debt and so forth or political risks, war, riot, insurrection, convertibility problems and other problems. This insurance can be on all export volume in a year or on a contract by contract basis. The EDC also provides surety insurance to Canadian exporters, covering the risk of wrongful call on bank guarantees or surety bonds by foreign buyers. A new service offered is contractors' surety, which covers contractors involved in construction projects abroad. The EDC's insurance covers all sizes and varieties of exporters, large and small.
' Another service is foreign investment guarantees. This insurance covers investments abroad by Canadian companies. Insurance is offered only when the EDC is convinced that the proposed investment is beneficial and acceptable to the host country and, more importantly, that there is a major return to the Canadian economy.
The service which attracts most of the attention and misguided criticism is the EDC's loan facility. The EDC lends money to foreign buyers of Canadian goods and services. These loans are fully secured and negotiated at rates of interest above the cost of money to the EDC.
Funds for these loans come from world capital markets, not out of taxpayers' pockets. The money never leaves Canada, as the EDC, acting on behalf of the foreign buyer, disburses directly to the Canadian exporter as he exports. To assure that Canadian jobs are being created or maintained, the EDC ensures that in each transaction Canadian content is maximized. In recognition of the importance of the role of developing and maximizing Canadian industry participation in each transaction, the EDC closely monitors the application of corporate Canadian content objectives. Thus, when loans are made to finance sales of Canadian equipment and services to projects being built in other countries, jobs in Canada's manufacturing industry are being created or maintained. One thing must remain clear: If there are no Canadian sales, then there is no EDC financing or any EDC insurance.
All the major trading nations of the world provide government support to facilitate trade. EDC facilities help Canadian exporters to meet competition on a non-subsidized basis. If a product or service is competitive in price, quality, delivery and service, the EDC enables the exporter to offer competitive credit terms. The EDC attempts to neutralize financing as a consideration in the awarding of contracts.
This bill is based on one of the most frequent misconceptions about the EDC. The hon. member feels that the EDC and Canada should not finance sales to industries or projects which may prove competitive to the Canadian mining industry. This rests on the belief that such action would benefit Canada by eliminating this competition. The problem with that thesis is that, by corollary, it must presume that Canada can prevent another country from developing projects and, that Canada is the sole proprietor of viable technology. However, the fact remains that, whether we like it or not, we live in a fiercely competitive world economic environment. If Canada does not sell mining technology, Great Britain, France, Germany,
November 28, 1978

Japan, the United States, Sweden and a host of other countries will.
Canada has no monopoly on either the technology or the capability for sale and construction of capital intensive projects. This has been explained and re-explained to the hon. member. He said during his speech that he hoped the hon. member from southern Ontario over here would have the temerity to stand up and say something. Well, now he is hearing it, but he is hearing the same thing he has heard many times. On May 3, 1978, during the meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs studying Bill C-36, the extent of EDC's participation in the Inco-Indonesia and Inco-Guatemala decisions was explained step by step.
The decision to go ahead in these cases had already been made by the buyer-that is, the foreign country; and EDC turned $1 million of procurement into $80 million on a $900 million project. This rationale was repeated over and over at subsequent meetings, but some hon. members, including the hon. member for Nickel Belt, would not accept the explanation.


John R. Rodriguez: Never.


Frank A. Philbrook: They seem either unwilling or unable to accept some very basic truths.


John R. Rodriguez: Both.


Frank A. Philbrook: Indonesia and Guatemala decided that they wanted to develop their nickel deposits. Had Inco been unable to go along with government plans, another company would have been given the options. The basic decision having been made-whether or not Canada liked it being of very little importance-the next step was equipping the mines. Canada, largely through EDC, received, as 1 said earlier, $80 million worth, creating or maintaining 4,000 man-years of employment. Had EDC not participated, the net result would have been $80 million going to another country, 4,000 jobs going to another country, and the unfortunate lay-offs in Sudbury taking place anyway.


John R. Rodriguez: What about R and D in mining?


Frank A. Philbrook: The question for the foreign buyer was "Where will the equipment be bought?", not, "Should we develop our resources or not?".
The Export Development Corporation has had an excellent track record in assisting Canadian manufacturers to land sizeable contracts which would otherwise have gone to foreign competitors. In Poland, for example, the recent contract for the construction of a pulp and paper mill had virtually been awarded to the Findlanders, a fait accompli, including the sale and financing. Through the efforts of a Canadian trade official in Warsaw, negotiations were reopened with the Poles. He persuaded them to hire H. A. Simons Ltd. of Vancouver as consulting engineers, thus helping to open the door for Canadi-
Export Development Act
an equipment subsuppliers as well. EDC supported H. A. Simons and got the Poles to use their services on a $50 million plus contract. Also forthcoming were equipment orders of at least $250 million as part of the whole package.
We have no direct control over what other countries do with their economies. We must try to capitalize on these opportunities to sell as many goods and services as possible. They are going to proceed, whether or not we fight, yell, scream and protest. Given a choice between half a loaf or none, which would you choose?


John R. Rodriguez: Developing our own industry.


Frank A. Philbrook: I think most Canadians would agree. The effect of this bill would be to prevent the use of EDC's services by viable sectors of the Canadian economy. All mining equipment, mining exploration and support companies would find exporting much more difficult. Not only would we lose the jobs related to these sales, but also the capacity to keep up with foreign competition, which is probably the most important challenge we face today. The effects on the Canadian industry would be horrendous.
This is an ill-advised bill. It is worse than ill-advised, it is harmful and should be withdrawn. From the prattling I have heard from the hon. member who introduced the bill, I doubt whether he has been able either to understand or accept this explanation.


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-205 which was introduced by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) represents a long standing issue, one which relates to the old chestnut that the Export Development Corporation is financing mining projects abroad which some day might compete with mining projects in Canada.
I should like to quote from the News of Truro, Nova Scotia, an article by John D. Harbron, a foreign affairs analyst from the Thomson News Service. He writes:
It's hard to understand why the trade union movement and the New Democratic Party, so concerned with our high unemployment, continue to attack the Export Development Corporation for financing overseas business for Canadian industry-
The Export Corporation's latest annual report indicates it had created 200,000 jobs during 1977 with a total of $1.2 billion in new export sales.
Bill C-205 aims to restrict EDC from supporting companies and individuals engaged in the business of mining in Canada or controlled by persons engaged in the business of mining. As has been pointed out by my colleagues, whether or not the Government of Canada supports mining companies in Canada through EDC in exploration or development abroad, as sure as God made little green apples those projects will go ahead. The hon. member for Nickel Belt laughs, and well he should laugh because he has no idea of economics.
Perhaps it would be a good idea for me to quote a Timmins newspaper because maybe it relates to the hon. member. This is from an article which appeared in the Timmins Daily Press of September 16.
80067-29'/!

November 28, 1978
Export Development Act


John R. Rodriguez: Another Thomson paper?


Hugh Alan Anderson: It reads:
One of the beauties of being the mouthpiece of labour, which means that favour must be curried at all times, is that logic can be tossed out the window and your intelligence given a permanent holiday.
The decision to establish a nickel mining operation in Indonesia or copper mines in Panama is not dependent upon decisions made in Canada. They are decisions made in the host company, and the only question that comes up is whether Canada will participate in those developments, whether goods and services will be bought in Canada or, as the hon. member for Nickel Belt would have it, whether those jobs should go to Germany, Japan, Italy, France or Great Britain. For a person who is interested in jobs for Canadians, I must say the hon. member is a sad example of someone who wishes to create jobs in Canada.


John R. Rodriguez: What about our mining industry?


Hugh Alan Anderson: If a project is proven feasible on the basis of world commodity markets and on the basis of the economics of the mining operations, then the host country, with or without Canada's acceptance, rejection or participation, will exploit the opportunity. Does anyone blame them? Would there be any company in Canada in the mining industry which, on discovering a fantastic gold body, would wait to find out whether the United States or the United Kingdom would wish to participate in it? It would be exploited and explored to the benefit of Canadians, regardless of what other countries became involved.
So why do we have to go through the exercise every three or four months of explaining to the hon. member for Nickel Belt that all we do through EDC is to make sure that a part of the development which takes place in other countries is of some benefit to workers in Canada? I wish the hon. member would stand up on some other occasion, perhaps in areas where jobs are created by EDC, and tell the people that his party is opposed to having industrial development in Canada based on the development that is taking place in another country. I do not think he would do this for two reasons: first, he knows it is patently false; and second, I do not think he has the nerve to do it.
The technology and the sale of equipment to Canadian companies, especially in the mining industry since we are talking about the mining industry, is tremendously important in the sense that many of our companies which supply mining material and which supply technology for the mining industry can only exist in Canada if they have a foreign market, because Canada is not the largest market in the world for this type of development. These companies rely on having access to foreign markets. If we allowed the hon. member's bill to go through, it would bankrupt numerous companies which supply the mining industry not only in Canada, but throughout the world.

Unfortunately the hon. member for Nickel Belt has no idea of economics. That is evident from the remarks he made when introducing Bill C-205 and other occasions when the Export Development Corporation subject was brought up in the House.
Mining projects abroad are costing in the order of $1 billion each. These projects span a period of at least five years. They require extensive planning and result in long-term manufacturing jobs. Although these particular projects are worth $1 billion each, they add only a few percentage points to the world stock of nickel, copper or whatever.


John R. Rodriguez: Baloney!


Hugh Alan Anderson: Apparently the hon. member for Nickel Belt disagrees with that comment. Of course, he does not agree with very much, so one would not expect him to agree with that comment.
The hon. member for Nickel Belt brought up the question of Panama. I should like to refer to that matter. Recently there has been some press coverage regarding EDC financing in the order of $1 billion to Empresa de Cobre Cerro Colorado S.A., a copper mining project in Panama.


John R. Rodriguez: Your Spanish is awful.


Hugh Alan Anderson: Perhaps my Spanish is awful, but I was referring to a copper mining project in Panama. The required financing would be to support the sale of equipment and servicesby Canadian exporters for copper mining, concentrating, smelting and to cover local costs. The project would be for one of the world's largest copper ore bodies. It involves a four to five year construction period and the development of a port facility. Feasibility studies have been undertaken by some of the leading consulting firms in the world. Approximately six companies have studied engineering, capital and operating costs, price and market demand forecasts, and financial analyses.
Texas Gulf Canada, Ltd. and a consortium of Canadian companies will supply equipment and services to the buyer. The project calls for an open pit mine, fed by 25 million to 30 million tonnes of ore per year.
I should like to refer to the cruncher, and I hope the hon. member will pay close attention to what I am about to say. The project could involve approximately 30 Canadian companies. It will provide some 30,000 to 40,000 man-years of Canadian employment for manufacturers and suppliers across Canada. This is at a time when we recognize that our economy is soft, that we are not utilizing fully the resources in Canada, and when there is underemployment. When we have an opportunity to create this number of man-years in jobs, the hon. member for Nickel Belt says, "To hell with it, we do not need those jobs. Let the Japanese have them; let the Germans have them".


John R. Rodriguez: That is not what I said.
November 28, 1978


Hugh Alan Anderson: Bill C-205 would not allow that participation of Canadian companies.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member is misinterpreting what 1 have said. At no point did I say-


An hon. Member:: That is not a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. That is not a point of order.


John R. Rodriguez: Then I rise on another point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: If the hon. member has a point of order, the Chair will hear it.


John R. Rodriguez: The hon. member is taking what I have said and extending it beyond its original meaning. He is misleading the House and the public when he does that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member is giving his interpretation of what the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) has said, which is his right in the House.


Hugh Alan Anderson: Bill C-205 aims to restrict the Export Development Corporation from supporting companies and individuals which are engaged in the business of mining in Canada or are controlled by persons engaged in the business of mining in Canada. In the case brought forward by the hon. member for Nickel Belt, the Panama project could involve some 30,000 to 40,000 man-years of Canadian employment in mining for suppliers located across Canada. Bill C-205 would not allow the 30,000 to 40,000 man-years which would accrue to Canada if our bid on this project is successful.


John R. Rodriguez: Bull roar!


Hugh Alan Anderson: The hon. member cannot have it both ways. He has brought forth a bill which would restrict EDC from supporting Canadian enterprise in the mining field.


John R. Rodriguez: That is not correct.


Hugh Alan Anderson: Perhaps the hon. member would want to withdraw the bill. I would have a difficult time going back to my constituency and saying, "We have just cut 30,000 to 40,000 prospective jobs in Canada because we agreed with the bill put forward by the hon. member for Nickel Belt". If the hon. member is not against the creation of these jobs in Canada, then he should withdraw his bill. That would be the honourable thing to do. It is absolute stupidity to bring forward a bill which would curtail industrial development in Canada at this time when we are underutilizing our present industrial capacity.
This is not the first time this has happened in the House. One cannot have it both ways.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: You ought to know.
Health Resources Fund Act


Hugh Alan Anderson: According to the annual report of the Export Development Corporation, it created 700,000 jobs in Canada and $1.2 billion in new export sales. That means jobs are being created in the country. Yet the hon. member for Nickel Belt said that we should get rid of it.


John R. Rodriguez: How many jobs have we lost?


Hugh Alan Anderson: The hon. member for Nickel Belt opposes the Export Development Corporation. He is willing to lose the 700,000 jobs and any further jobs which EDC can create.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has expired. It being six o'clock, I do now 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, to amend the Health Resources Fund Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, as I rise to take part in this debate on Bill C-2 regarding the Health Resources Fund Act it is interesting to note that I was here in the House when the original bill was first introduced by the present government House leader, who was then health minister. I have followed the act's progress with a good deal of feeling over the years because of my interest in how it might increase research activity, an increase that was certainly necessary at the time. This is apparent when we stop to consider that more scientists lived and worked in this century than lived and worked since dawn. When we realize this we must concede that there have been terrific advances in science, not only because of the numbers involved, but because each discovery has led to something else and there has been a compounding effect. Scientists have carried on with new ideas and new discoveries.
I have listened to the speeches during this debate with a great deal of satisfaction. They have been excellent speeches. I

November 28, 1978
Health Resources Fund Act
was in the House when national medicare and the Health Resources Fund Act were introduced. Let me give a little of the scientific history of the nineteenth century. During that time Jenner discovered vaccination which has proved to be such a boon. This was a scientific discovery by a general practitioner in the U.K. In France there was the discovery by Pasteur of the germ theory, and Lister put this theory into practice in surgery using an antiseptic spray in the operating room to kill bacteria. I have had the privilege of seeing the equipment used in the operating rooms of hospitals in England, here in Canada and elsewhere. In addition, Madame Curie in France made a great discovery-radium.
At the beginning of the twentieth century our average life expectancy was a little over 40 years. Today the average life expectancy is about 75 years. In the early days infectious diseases were our main killers. We had our pneumonias, scarlet fever, typhoid fever and diphtheria. These were the major killers of individuals up to age 35.
This picture has almost changed completely. The big killer today of individuals from birth to age 35 is accident. This is an altogether different world from that point of view, and an altogether different world we are living in from a scientific point of view.
At the beginning of this century the wards of the existing hospitals were filled to overflowing with patients suffering from typhoid fever in the fall months. Every bed in the hospitals was filled, and you could see the ice buckets out in the wards for the fever baths. I have talked to doctors who have experienced this. We then learned that this was a disease caused by the environment and hygiene. We then took measures to stamp out typhoid fever by isolating the organism and developing a vaccine, thus treating the environment. Had this not been done the first world war could not have been fought on the scale it was.
From there we go on to the antitoxins and the development of toxoids to prevent diphtheria. I can still remember vividly an experience, when I was seven years of age living on the farm, concerning the family next door. The mother had gone to Toronto where she had died in hospital. One of her children who had been to Toronto contracted diphtheria, and in that family of 13 five of the children were wiped out in the space of about three weeks. Diphtheria antitoxins did not come into general use until around 1905, and they were used on this particular family.
After the antitoxins we go on to the great discovery by Banting and Best that wrote history for Canada around the world. They had discovered a treatment for diabetes. I was raised not far from the town where Dr. Banting was born, and I can remember his telling me about the impression that he had when he was a young school boy of seeing a young girl in his class who had diabetes. Day after day he watched her get thinner and thinner, and every time she went by the water pump she had to take a drink. She eventually died. There was always the strange smell on her, which we now recognize as

acetone. That gave Banting an impression which carried him through medical school until he and Dr. Best did research on the pancreas of dogs at the University of Toronto and finally found a treatment for diabetes.
Insulin allows the diabetic to live a normal life, contributing greatly not only to the economics of this land but to the health and well being of people. One of the outstanding doctors of diabetes in the city of Toronto was a diabetic himself who lived and was able to practice as a doctor because of the discovery of insulin.
Another great story is the one of two scientists, Minot and Murphy, at the University of Chicago who discovered that an extract of liver would cure pernicious anemia. There probably is not a confrere of mine in this House that has ever seen a case of pernicious anemia where a person would have a relapse of fever and the red blood cell count would go down. It is similar to a cancer of the blood. These two researchers found that a shot of extract from the liver every week would cure and control this disease. We no longer see the disease any more than we see a case of diabetes which is not properly treated.
Sulfa was the first drug to be discovered that was able to kill bacteria. In 1936 I brought some prontosil home from the Mayo Clinic where they had been using it to cure strep infections, the scarlet fevers, tonsillitis and diseases such as that. Patients responded very well to this treatment and it took strep out of the category of a dangerous disease.
The next drug used was dagenan. I spoke to a lady on Sunday whom I had once treated for pneumonia by the use of dagenan. After dagenan came the discovery of the penicillins. A researcher found that bacteria would not grow on a mould, and from that mould came penicillin. This drug has saved so many young people's lives, particularly those who had pneumonia. The death rate from pneumonia, before the discovery of penicillin was one in five, but today it is about one in 25, and that rate will be cut down further with the development of the newer, stronger penicillins. The next drugs to be developed were the aureomycins and the tetracyclines and so forth, again setting a new pattern for killing off infections.
At the end of this era we found that the whole ball game had changed and that we now had to face the fact that we were running into chronic diseases. We found that one in every ten people had a cardiovascular disease of some type by the age of 50. After this came the arthritic disorders, diseases of the respiratory system, emphysema, etc. These are chronic diseases and by the time people had reached the age of 60 they had four times the illness they had at 30 years of age. This brought to the fore the need for chronic care and the problem of research, because at this point we were treating chronic diseases, not the acute infections of previous days.
What has happened in the meantime? We have gone through the fifties and the sixties and we find that four million people have immigrated into this country in a few years. We are short of doctors because very few of the medical schools have enlarged sufficiently to meet this increase in population. What we were doing then was cheating, because it now costs more than $100,000 to put a person through medical school, as
November 28, 1978

compared with $60,000 then. A third or half of the people entering the field of medicine were either graduates or immigrants who came to this country from some other country in which they had been educated.
We talk about foreign aid. If that is not taking foreign aid from countries that could ill afford it, I do not know what it is. Most of these countries had a doctor-patient ratio which was much higher than Canada's. In India there is probably one doctor for every 5,000 people, whereas in Canada it would be about one doctor for every 2,000 people.
Something had to be done, and as a result the Hall commission report came about. This House approved the establishment of the Hall commission to determine what could be done about the enlargement of medical schools, among other things. They realized that they were getting into a chronic care situation and that more research would be needed. The report of the Hall commission was largely adopted.
In 1966 the Health Resources Fund Act was passed on the basis that it would add facilities to medical schools to give them an opportunity to bring in teachers, professors and scientists to develop the best medical schools in the world. The principle behind it was to give us the best there was, and they pledged $500 million for a period of 15 years, which would bring us to 1981. In 1978 we find that we have been cut off.
I believe I forgot to mention the disease poliomyelitis when I mentioned the great work that has been done by scientists on the North American continent and around the world. But when they found a preventive measure for this crippling disease which could kill a young person in the space of 48 hours, and if it did not kill it could cripple and handicap a person for life, the return on polio research amounted to more than $2,000 for every $1 spent, although it is almost impossible to arrive at any kind of an accurate figure. Nothing pays off so well as research.
Here we have a government that brought in a health resources act now wanting to cut off the money supply. It seems incredible, when one looks at the Auditor General's report and finds such carelessness in the spending of money, that this government dares to cut off something that saves people's lives. There are so many crippling diseases. The statistics show that cancer kills one person in every four. Emphysema is on the increase. There are many other diseases from which people suffer. There is hardly a family in Canada that will not be touched somewhere along the line by a disease that we have yet to conquer. We can only conquer these diseases by continued research.
At this point I would like to pay tribute to those researchers who spend their lives doing this type of work, many of whom at the end of their careers have discovered nothing but have steadfastly worked hard in the hope that some miraculous breakthrough will occur. These researchers suffer trials, tribulations and frustrations in an endeavour to restore health to the people of this country and throughout the world. Many of them have given their lives by experimenting with injections or
Health Resources Fund Act
treatments performed on themselves. I say with a source of pride that there are still people who are willing to enter this field of endeavour without adequate funds or any kind of tribute.
A cramping of resources in the health care field has occurred over the last ten years. It has been a fight all the way to get a little more money for the research necessary. At the beginning of this century there were few scientists. Today we have many. We have conquered many diseases but there are still chronic diseases to deal with.
If we look at the statistics we find that there are more than two million people over the age of 65. There are diseases of all kinds that can take a man who is at the height of his career and in the prime of his life out of the work force and make him a liability. It is our responsibility to see that we retain the health and work abilities of those people as long as it is possible to do so, and in many cases beyond the age of 60 and 65. As hon. members know, a bill was introduced in the United States stating that it will not be mandatory to retire at the age of 65 if a person is physically and mentally fit. Instead a person will be allowed to carry on working until the age of 70. If there is enough money put into research to keep people healthy, perhaps people will be able to work until they are 75. If that cannot be accomplished the social service scheme will be in trouble.
There is another bill in the United States covering people academically trained. If they are physically and mentally well they can carry on without time limitation. This not only applies to the field of health resources but also industry. The government admits they should be spending five times as much, and yet here we are cutting funds. Can you tell me, Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with a government that does that?
The other night I went outside the House of Commons at about eleven o'clock. I looked across the river and saw that every one of those buildings on the other side was lit up. 1 thought of people raising families. With the rate of inflation today many families are finding it difficult to pay their electric light and heating bills. I could take you to homes owned by old people and pensioners who are paying their taxes, heating and lighting, but the government does not subsidize them as far as housing is concerned. These senior citizens have been neglected. There is, however, subsidized housing in some cities. When I looked across at all these buildings lit up it occurred to me that for the cost of one night's electricity for those buildings something more beneficial could be done. Not only that, I thought of the cost of construction of those buildings. There is no return on that and no research from a project such as that. Space that is empty is being paid for in Ottawa. The provinces are already saying that they are not getting enough money for things they want to do.
There is something wrong. I do not believe the government realize what they are doing. I do not believe this government understand what research is. I do not believe they understand that they have cut off research or that there will be a breakdown in the social system. The minister is a nice lady but I do not know if she is tough enough in cabinet to tell her col-

November 28, 1978
Health Resources Fund Act
leagues what the situation is. Once the government starts on a path of cutting funds for research, researchers will be lost. They will leave one by one. Good teachers will be lost. Many universities have lost professors over the last two years that now have leading positions in the United States. Once these people have left and are set up in another university it is very difficult to entice them back. Every day we lose some people in this field. We are losing younger people as well, because these people say that research has been cut back 20 per cent, and that means that 20 per cent of the jobs will disappear.
This is not only a disastrous course in the economic field, but a disastrous course pure and simple when it comes down to the saving of lives and doing the necessary research. 1 hope the government will take another look at this, but not in three or five years because by then we will have lost our researchers. We are losing them and our economic value.
1 hope the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will realize you cannot hurt the people of this country from the standpoint of not providing the funds to find a cure for cancer and disabling disease. We must find a way to treat people beyond the age of 60 or 65 so that our whole social system does not break down.
In conclusion, I hope the Prime Minister will take another look at this before allowing it to go completely by the board.


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this debate, it is a very welcome privilege to follow the eloquent plea made by my colleague from Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) to the government benches. He asked the government to realize its responsibility, and to take it seriously, with regard to the development of innovative research in this country and the stimulation of that very important field, a recognition that too long has been lacking. He stated that we as a country will not progress in this century or the next until we give research the kind of attention it justly deserves.
I want to take a few minutes to dwell on this bill. I do so for several reasons. First, it has been a field of continuing interest to me. It is of continuing interest to the area I represent, both with regard to health research and medical research as well as the broader sense of industrial research. It is an area that is of great concern to me as an individual Canadian who believes that the future of this country is based on a recognition of research and what it can do for us.
It is somewhat ironic that this bill dealing with the elimination of the health resources fund should come up for debate in this House at the very time that a federal-provincial conference is being held just across the street from the Parliament Buildings. While the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the premiers meet to discuss federal-provincial co-operation on economic and fiscal matters, we are here discussing a bill that represents just one more example of the heavy-handed and unilateral approach of the federal government in its dealings with the provinces.

The irony is really just on the surface, since in all of the recent meetings between the federal and provincial first ministers the themes of federal interference in provincial affairs and provincial repercussions from federal action such as cutbacks in social programs emerge again and again. This is so because the government's commitment to consultation and co-operation is really very superficial, one to be dusted off and shown for display over national television when it pleases the government to do so, but quickly forgotten in the weeks and months that intervene. Certainly it is forgotten when it comes to policy formation and the impact of policy formation on the regions of this country. How else can we view the actions of the government when we are faced with such a blatant example of non-consultation as the demise, in this particular example, of the health resources fund?
Some provinces were indeed informed of the impending cutback, but none were consulted. For example, the minister of health in Manitoba was informed by telex five days after the announcement in the press. Some provinces were placed in the position where projects were already under way, projects they had been led to believe would be supported by ongoing funding from the health resources fund. True, the specific funds had not been committed, but the over-all budget was there. Now, according to the minister and the government, these funds will never be committed. The provinces will be asked, as they have been in many other cases, to pick up the tab.
This has been all too prevalent in some of the fiascos the government has introduced in recent months. For example, equalization cutbacks, a fund that is supposed to be a contract between 11 governments in this country. The equalization cutbacks were imposed unilaterally. Let the provinces shoulder the burden either by cutting back on essential programs or increasing taxes; that is the view of the federal government. Cutbacks to the unemployment insurance budget? Let the provinces make it up through welfare payments.
Here again with this bill we have the same attitude on the part of this government. The federal government says it will save $84 million, not by cutting back on its own operations, but by cutting back on provincial programs, and that without a word of prior consultation.
Not only does the cutback of the health resources fund represent another in a long series of blows to provincial budgets and provincial planning, but it is an indication of the irrationality of many of the cutbacks announced by the government since August. What is more, the government does not seem to recognize the irrationality and incohesion of many of the actions it has taken, it says in the name of restraint. It amazes me that government spokesmen seem to feel that their restraint program is a model of economic sense. Nothing they have done in the past ten years can be held up as a model of economic good sense.
Recently Treasury Board circulated a copy of a speech by the Comptroller General of Canada. It was a speech he had given to the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants on the problems and opportunities facing government as it accepts the challenge of fiscal restraint. I recommend it to members on
November 28, 1978

the government side. The speech was entitled "Controlling Federal Government Expenditures . . . Doing More with Less". What caught my eye was the title "Doing More with Less".
That is an admirable goal, one that could be easily attained by cutting waste and over-expenditure. The kind of overexpenditure referred to in the recent Senate report on accommodation would come under the category of doing more with less. That report showed that the government will be spending at least $179 million more in rent for office space over the next 35 years than if it had built the building itself.
Auditor Generals' reports are filled with examples of waste and over-expenditure that could be cut with no adverse effects on the taxpayers. The most recent report, the one we saw just last week, stated:
During the period of rapid expansion in the federal government it appears that the public purse was gradually deemed virtually bottomless.
The most recent report, the one we saw just last week, stated that during the period of rapid expansion in the federal government it appeared that the public purse was "gradually deemed virtually bottomless" and that there was very little attempt made to study whether or not a program was effective or efficient. It is both necessary and desirable to cut out waste and mismanagement in the spending of taxpayers' money. That is what I would call rational restraint-to cut out the fat and keep the meat; to do more with less. But some of the cuts which have been imposed during the government's burst of restraint are not that kind of restraint. They represent what I would call totally irrational restraint, restraint that does not make sense, restraint that keeps the fat and does away with the meat.
I received a letter earlier this year, in October, from the Canadian Federation of Biological Societies, a group of scientists very much concerned with the way the government is going in its irrational restraints upon scientific research. The letter reads:
While the recently announced federal cutbacks to health and education budgets do not as yet have operational meaning, they provide a clear indication of the government's current thinking and intentions. It is truly a hollow government policy that last June 1 proposes to stimulate research and development in this country and then, just a few months later, reneges on the same promises by cutting back on investment and innovation.
That letter, written before the introduction of this bill, reflects the concern which has been expressed by the biological scientists and by many others who are devoted to scientific and medical research. As they point out, restraint affecting research programs, restraint which is harmful in its effects, cannot be called rational. It is not "doing more with less." The long-term effect would be quite the opposite-doing less with more. This is because every dollar which is not spent on research today will mean about 20 additional dollars which will have to be spent tomorrow. That is not real restraint.
Some of the proposed cutbacks are likely to have very detrimental effects and their adverse impact on the economy is obvious. I could list a few. The termination of the health resources fund is a prime example, as are the cutbacks affect-
Health Resources Fund Act
ing the various branches of the Department of National Health and Welfare.
I think of the $3 million cut in the professional training program; the $4.8 million cut in the program concerning the non-medical use of drugs; the $2 million cutback in the national health research and development program, and the general reduction of $500,000 in the budget of the Medical Research Council.
Cuts of that kind are fairly obvious and we recognize immediately that they are capable of a serious adverse impact. But there are other cutbacks which are less obvious and whose potential for adverse impact is not so quickly discernible. I will list a few. There is the $1.3 million cutback in post-secondary education programs administered through the education, science and culture division of Industry, Trade and Commerce; there is the $1 million general reduction in the funds available to the National Research Council; there is the reduction of $300,000 in the budget of the Canada Council and of $2.1 million in the funding available to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. Nor does this list include the millions cut from research and development funding affecting agriculture, the environment and cultural programs.
All this makes one wonder what the government has against the whole field of scientific research. It does not have a good record anyway, as we all know. But at a time when we should be building the future of our country on scientific research and development, they are particularly hard to defend.
The minister makes light of these cutbacks. In an interview reported in the Ottawa Citizen on October 18 she said the cut of half a million dollars from the budget of the Medical Research Council was small in comparison with others, for example in comparison with the cut in the operations budget of her own department. She said it made only the smallest dent in the council's total budget for the support of research in 1978-79.
This ignores two things. First, it ignores the fact that there are many other cutbacks affecting medical research-I have already mentioned some of them-in addition to the cuts in the Medical Research Council's budget. It also ignores the fact that in terms of 1971-72 dollars the council's budget has decreased annually by an average of 7 per cent. So that represents a further reduction in an already inadequate medical research budget.
Furthermore, the cuts in the funding of the Medical Research Council, the national health research and development program and the professional training program will affect more than the researchers themselves. Their impact will go far beyond the immediate research community. The loss will affect the training of physicians and other health professionals and will directly reduce patient care as trained personnel leave Canada. That is one of the very real tragedies of the approach taken by the government to health care and research in general. It illustrates the lack of sensitivity and awareness in this field.
1596

November 28, 1978
Health Resources Fund Act
What we have as a result of severe spending cutbacks in a very important field is the Canadian research community's losing a number of its most brilliant people. Already the reality of the Canadian research situation has caused many scientists and technicians to abandon that particular livelihood here in Canada or, indeed, to go elsewhere to pursue it. This year, for example, of 23 new applications to the Medical Research Council for grants for programs which were analyzed and deemed worthy of support by the Medical Research Council, only three were funded. What happened to the other 20 researchers and their programs? What happened to the benefits they might have brought to this country?
The health resources fund which the minister is in the process of eliminating-and she has eliminated other programs in the social services field-has provided a means for continuing scientific development in all regions of this country. It has contributed to the expansion of university hospitals, research centres and medical library facilities as well as to general health and hospital services across this country. According to the minister's own figures which she quoted when she spoke in the debate the other day, the fund has increased the number of graduates in health manpower categories by up to 9,000 a year in the ten-year period between 1966 and 1976. In 1966 there were only nine graduate respiratory technologists in Canada. In 1976 there were 138. The number of graduate laboratory technologists in 1966 was 265. By 1977, thanks in part to this program, that number had risen to 1,200.
One might say that that is enough and that we should be content with that. That seems to be what the government is saying when it suggests cutting off this program and abandoning it before it has run its full course. "There are 1,200 graduate laboratory technologists; surely that should satisfy the Canadian market". That seems to be the way the government is approaching this, but that is part of the irrational thinking of this government when it comes to something like research and development in this country. We are a growing country. We are a developing country. We depend on research and technology to take us forward, but their funding and importance are being reduced by this government. The cutback about which I am talking will retard development and reduce the number of skilled and professional people in a field where they are much needed. The cutback will reduce their numbers as well as practical and theoretical medical facilities.
The health resources plan is a good plan. It has been working well. But in order to save $84 million over the next two and a half years the minister has served notice that she will be putting an end to any further commitments under the plan. The provinces are left holding the bag. There are planned and uncompleted projects. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but, more importantly, Canadians in general are also being deprived of a program which would have benefitted each and every Canadian had it been allowed to continue.
In the light of so much waste in other areas, the government's allowing such a situation to develop is shameful. This cut is both unnecessary and irrational. Furthermore, in light of

the current tragic state of affairs in medical research generally and in light of cutbacks, hidden and otherwise, in other medical research funding, the termination of the health resources fund is just one more nail which the government seems willing to drive into the coffin of Canadian medical research. It is one more blow to the health scientists of this country and, regretfully, one more indication that the government does not recognize a dollar spent wisely. What is worse, it does not care.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker,
I want to register a few concerns I have about Bill C-2, which would amend the Health Resources Fund Act. Over the years I have been quite amazed at the attitude of this government. As just pointed out by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), the government seems to be misguided in its priorities. The hon. member said that the government is attempting to save $84 million. As I understand it, the Health Resources Fund Act was to expire in 1981. In order to give some indication of restraint-and I smile at that-the government wants to cancel the health resources fund. The government wants to cut the three-quarters of the fund which is earmarked for buildings and the one-quarter which is set aside for research.
The position being taken by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) is a unilateral one. It was taken without consultation. If there was consultation, it was meaningless. Consultation is not a telex giving three weeks' or six weeks' notice. When I think of consultation, I think of getting together as ladies or gentlemen, as the case may be, and accepting responsibilities in terms of what confederation is all about.
This government is mistaken in believing in the process of confrontation. Confrontation politics seem to be what this government dwells on. We on this side believe in and attempt to practice co-operation and consultation, because in the long run this is how strides are made. This is how dialogue is brought about. This is how good communication is brought about, and this is how results are produced for the Canadian people. The consultation to which I refer should not be for the benefit of any particular party but for the benefit of the Canadian people. Unlike this government, we would rather talk about goals than fight about jurisdiction. If there is to be a fight, obviously we would have to sit down as rational people and get our priorities straight.
In the past five or six years I have received many letters from McMaster University. McMaster University is a centre of learning, and it is profoundly concerned about the attitude of this government regarding medical research. As a result of the prodding of this party and the concern which is registered, the government "bends over backwards" every now and again to throw out a pittance in the hope that that will satisfy a very viable segment of Canadian society, that is, medical research.
The government talks about saving $84 million, but it spills and wastes more than that in one year. Where are its priori-
November 28, 1978


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: 
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Does she know she is affecting employment? Does she know that as a result of her heavy-handed, unilateral, arrogant action, medical research is going down the drain? Does she know that the Canadian people are suffering as a result of her approach?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Sterling Lyon approach.
Health Resources Fund Act


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I was not going to speak, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Parent:: Thank God.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Parent) says, "Thank God." He is another one who joins hands with the minister to make sure that our health care is destroyed.


An hon. Member:: He would like to.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: He is not capable. I want to end by saying this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I do not know whether our socialist friends to the left have made a contribution as yet, but they do not care. They are the ones who voted against the pipeline which was going to bring about employment.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Don't say "Order" to me. The hon. member opposite wishes to rise and make a contribution. Give him that opportunity, Mr. Speaker, so that we can see whether he will follow the same irrational course as the minister has followed. Because he will have to report to his constituents. He is the one who will have to justify his position. I think I will recommend to McMaster University that they write to all the Liberal members, and the socialists as well, seeing that I was interrupted by them, asking them where they stand on this vital and important issue, and where they stand with respect to priorities in medical health and therefore the future of our children.
This government must get its priorities straightened out, and it must start approaching federal-provincial relations with some meaningful ideas in terms of consultation and co-operation, rather than confrontation. If you make a deal, then in my view-I am not one of the most excellent lawyers here but I know this-you cannot break a contract unilaterally because you end up in court. That is what the minister does. She did it with block funding and she had the provinces all upset. She even stands up and pulls the rug from under the provinces and says to them, "Carry on, do what you want, but I will not get involved even though we had a form of an agreement or an intent to proceed in a particular direction."


Flora Isabel MacDonald: She was dictated to by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien).


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Then she is just as bad as he is and she is part and parcel of the same gang.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: They are all too conservative.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: The "Gang of Four".


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mark my words, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to become partisan because this is not my role, but I just want to let that party know something. It is this kind of
80067-30'/i

November 28, 1978
Health Resources Fund Act
attitude, this carelessness, this lack of concern and unresponsiveness that sends them down the drain. If you walked into Hamilton West you would hear people say, "Line, when will you get rid of those people?" I say to them, "Listen, I am doing my bit." Mr. Speaker, I am doing my bit tonight. I say to my constituents, "I expect you to do your part as well."
The government are callous, they are arrogant, they do not care. They say: "We govern, we are right." Did you hear that, Mr. Speaker? That is what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said. He considers the rest of the population to be enemies. He considers the media to be enemies and the people of Canada to be enemies. What is so right about a million unemployed? This government's policies have helped magnificently to bring that about. What is so right about saving $84.5 million at the expense of the Canadian people?


Mr. Boulanger:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Has my friend contributed to this debate as yet?


Prosper Boulanger: Why should I? You are doing it now.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: He is part and parcel of the same gang. He also will have to justify his position with regard to medical health and research in this country. He comes from a province which is concerned about cutbacks which will affect their children and their grandchildren. He sits there trying to make fun of me because I am trying to knock some sense in his sick head.


Iona Campagnolo: Shame!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I think I have said enough.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I see the Minister of National Health and Welfare is becoming nervous.


Miss Begin:: Not at all.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: She ioes not have the confidence of the Canadian people.


Monique Bégin: Yes, I do.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: She does not have the confidence of the provinces, and it is doggone sure she does not have the confidence of medical researchers.


Monique Bégin: That is not true.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Medical research is a very significant segment of the country.
1 thank Your Honour very much for providing me with an opportunity to say a few words in order to try, as I have done

for ten years, to knock some sense into the government's head. The polls indicate that we are winning.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Prosper Boulanger: Will the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) permit a question?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Yes.


Prosper Boulanger: Can the hon. member anwer my question honestly and seriously: From where did he get the figure of one million unemployed in this country? Is it a true figure, or did he pull it out of the air?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, that is a very easy question to answer. When I talk about one million people, I am including the hidden jobless.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to take part in this debate; however, faced with this despicable performance, quite unworthy of a serious member of this House, I cannot help but respond to the quite improper and quite unfair statements that have just been made by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). Undoubtedly, the kind of remarks he just made before the House and the Canadian public listening through television will be judged according to their own merit by the Canadian public who has witnessed this shameful performance by the hon. member for Hamilton West, glass in hand, uttering quite improper and incongruous remarks.
What must be said about this proposal is that unfortunately, in these times of restraints, at a time when all Canadians urge the federal government and the provincial governments to reduce their expenditures as much as possible, so as to curb public spending, the Canadian government had to take some decisions and to make some budgetary cuts, obviously difficult to carry out but absolutely essential to maintain the Canadian economy.

I should like to say a few words in English, because the words expressed in the House were in English and they should be answered in the same language.
A policy of expenditure restraint had been advocated widely for some time. I am surprised to hear hon. members of the loyal opposition referring to a unilateral move by the federal government, when in fact there has been no such move. Such a policy of restraint is necessary to increase confidence in the Canadian economy, and to provide room for the private sector to expand and create jobs. Hon. members of the Conservative party have lost track of these important matters.
Expenditure restraint was a major feature of the federal anti-inflation program announced in the fall of 1975. In fact, this desire has been present since then. At the first ministers' conference last February, it was agreed that governments
November 28, 1978

should strive to reduce their rate of increase in expenditures to something less than the trend rate of growth of the gross national product. At their last conference, the ministers of finance agreed that restraint was necessary. It is with this high degree of consensus that the Canadian government implemented a substantial reduction of expenditures totalling $2.5 billion last summer.
I have heard members of the opposition expressing surprise and attempting to convey the message to the Canadian public that all of these matters were done unilaterally, without consulting the provinces. This is totally untrue and unfair.


Some hon. Members:: Elear, hear!


André Ouellet: 
André Ouellet: It is more than a big joke. It is a very sad approach by an opposition which expects to form the government one day. They act so irresponsibly that I am sure the Canadian public will never give them the mandate.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order because I am sure the minister does not want to mislead the House intentionally. I know he is doing it unintentionally, because he is uninformed on this matter. I personally was in touch with each of the provinces, and all of them told me that they were not consulted in advance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


André Ouellet: The hon. member should confirm his facts. This was decided at the first ministers' conference.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It was never mentioned.


André Ouellet: I have notes in my possession which were used by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) in the last meeting with the provincial finance ministers. He said the following:
The federal government cannot reduce the level and rate of growth of its expenditures and at the same time carry the main burden for the achievement of a satisfactory growth rate for the whole economy, without affecting transfer payments to the provinces. Reducing expenditures is a difficult task. While there is widespread support for a reduction in government expenditures in general, each particular sector of our society seems to feel it is being asked to carry more than its fair share of the burden. But only if we are all prepared to accept some discipline will we be able to achieve our common economic objectives.
Also the minister indicated that transfer payments to the provinces in 1978-79 amounted to more than $10 billion, plus the transfer of tax room amounting to over $3.6 billion. Thus, a total of close to $14 billion was given to the provinces by the federal government.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Given?


André Ouellet: When the Minister of Finance indicated that some cuts must take place, he outlined various options to the provinces. He indicated that it could be done through the financing of established programs, the financing of social
Health Resources Fund Act
services, the community services grants program, the existing equalization program, or the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act. Through the Minister of Finance, the federal government told the provinces that they had a choice.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Take it or leave it.


André Ouellet: He was ready and willing to receive their recommendations and suggestions concerning the appropriate cuts. The federal government felt that it had no alternative but to take the obviously difficult step of proposing to the provinces that some features of fiscal arrangements must be modified.
I must say that the bill we are studying today is a direct consequence of a joint effort by the federal and provincial governments to arrive at some restraints in public expenditures, be they federal or provincial, which ought to take place in order to help the Canadian economy. I think the opposition cannot have it both ways.
[ Translation]
There is no doubt that the attitude of the Progressive Conservative party, the official opposition in this House, is to try to be on both sides of the fence at the same time, to go and tell the businessmen that government expenses are outrageous and, that if they were the government they would cut those expenses drastically. Just as we have a bill which is the obvious result of a discussion, of a consensus which was reached at the last finance ministers' conference, the official opposition have a good laugh at us, pretend to be disgusted because the Canadian government takes its responsibilities and cut certain expenses. They try to make believe that if they were the government, they would make those cuts.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, hon. members of the opposition have showed us irresponsibility tonight and that clearly reflects their lack of seriousness. When they are talking to a certain group of people they use a certain language; when they speak to businessmen they say that they are going to cut government expenses. But when they speak to the citizens who can indeed be directly affected by the proposals which they advocated before the first group, they say that they are going to do something different.
Mr. Speaker, I think the bill we are considering now comes as a logical consequence of serious decisions which were difficult to make, but were essential and that it is in the best interest of the Canadian economy and I believe the House should pass it.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. parliamentary secretary on a point of order.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important at this stage to inform you of an agreement reached by representa-

November 28, 1978
Health Resources Fund Act
tives of all parties in the House, to the effect that before ten o'clock tonight, the second reading debate on this bill will come to an end and that, should a vote be required, it will be deferred until tomorrow after the oral question period. 1 talked about this with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and I have his agreement. I had the same conversation with the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) who told me I had a firm deal. So, before Your Honour recognizes the hon. member, I wanted to make you aware of this agreement and I understand that at 9.59 at the latest he will end his remarks in order that we can comply with the agreement all parties came to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the suggestion that an agreement has been reached between the parties to the effect that the second reading stage of this bill is to be completed before ten o'clock tonight, and that if a registered vote is necessary it will be postponed until tomorrow afternoon after the question period. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate this opportunity to speak on this bill. I should tell the Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) that he may be sorry for making the deal that we stop at ten o'clock, because by the time I get wound up he may be so enraptured he will not want me to quit.


An hon. Member:: Enraptured! We need some raptores.


Benno Friesen: I suppose we could use some raptores here, and there would be no need for health care.
The hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) wanted to know where we got the one million unemployed figure. Let me say to him that after the next election there will be quite a number from that side added to the unemployment list.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Benno Friesen: I want to thank the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) for warming up this crowd for me. He did an admirable job.


An hon. Member:: Don't cool them off.


Benno Friesen: I promise not to cool them off. The people from Saskatchewan are used to having things dry, so I am sure the hon. member won't mind if I speak.


An hon. Member:: You go ahead and I will see you tomorrow.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, we are debating Bill C-2 which is one paragraph long. For the record I should like to read that paragraph. I think it is the shortest bill in the history of parliament. It states as follows:

No payment shall be made under this act in respect of any cost incurred in respect of a health training facility unless payment of a contribution toward the cost thereof was authorized by the minister pursuant to subsection 4(1) or 5(1) before September 9, 1978.
As I said, that is probably one of the shortest bills in the history of Canada, but it could have been even shorter. It could have been just two words, namely, "we quit". It has been the history of this government to introduce programs, twist provincial governments' arms to participate in the programs, make a commitment and when the economic pinch is a little tight or sharp it quits, leaving the provincial governments to carry the ball. That is the record of this government.
I have been reading, as I am sure other members have, a book by William Simon of the United States entitled "A Time of Truth". I see the hon. member from Quebec city reading it.


Mr. Dawson:: Louis-Hebert.


Benno Friesen: I am sorry, the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mr. Dawson). I would hate to have him transplanted so quickly. I know he will be after the next election but I do not want to hasten the process. I am glad to see that hon. member reading the book. I hope he takes it to heart and applies some of the principles it contains in his caucus. I would refer hon. members to page 113 where Mr. Simon says some very enlightening things. He is speaking of those who have adopted the small "1" liberal ideology which he says:
-is actually committed to a steady erosion of our wealth and freedom, although its advocates are usually unaware of it.
They are unaware of it because they no longer know the relationship between wealth and freedom. Indeed, it is not too much to say that they no longer understand the concept of freedom. FDR actually redefined that concept, corrupting it so hopelessly that, save for a few philosophical diehards, succeeding generations were never again clear as to what it meant. Political freedom means only one thing: freedom from the state. FDR, however, invented a new kind of 'freedom': a government guarantee of economic security and prosperity. He thus equated "freedom" with cash. However desirable economic security may be-and it is profoundly desirable-it is not the same thing as political freedom.
He goes on a few sentences later to say:
The state ceased to be viewed as man's most dangerous enemy, to be shackled forever by constitutional chains. It was henceforth proclaimed to be the precise opposite; it became man's tenderhearted protector and provider. Statism and collectivism were brought into this country-by the back door-and, ironically, were heralded thereafter as the saving of free enterprise.
That is the significant change that has taken place in our countries, and I say that advisedly because it is a change that has taken place not only in this country and in the United States, but in England and many western democracies. There has been a change in philosophy. At one time we devoted all our energies to protecting ourselves from the state, or from intrusions by the state into our privacy and decision-making process. Now things have shifted to the point where we see the state as the power benefactor. One thing which the state does very well is govern, because it is designed to do that. It is infatuated with that process, and given the latitude and opportunity the state will govern. As readily as we are willing to turn over to the state the decision-making processes of our lives, even more ready to accept it is the state, to come into our lives and to take them over.
November 28, 1978

As I reflected on what Mr. Simon said, I could not help but flip over the pages of history in my mind and to think of the process of democratization of our countries. In the United States the watershed occurred in 1787 and 1789, when they passed their bill of rights which said in substance that Congress snail be prohibited from invading the lives of the individual citizens of that country. A few years later the republic of France did the same thing. One hundred years previous to that England passed its bill of rights as a statute, not as part of the constitution-because we all know that England does not have a constitution. When William and Mary took over the throne of England the good citizens had the foresight to ask for a bill of rights to ensure that the constitutional monarchy could not invade their private lives. That is the history of the democratization of the constitutions as we know them. Essentially they free us from arbitrary control by the state or the government.
Here we have a government that again moves into the area of arbitrary decision-making. A few years ago it instituted a program of training for health facilities in the provinces. It induces the provinces and twists their arms to participate in that process and to use their funds in it. Once their tax structure training facilities and their capital expenditures are committed, then all of a sudden the federal government says, "Too bad, we can't afford it any longer; you're on your own". These are the ways in which the federal government intrudes in our lives. They come to us as though they are the great benefactor of the citizens, but in actual fact they become our governors and our masters.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That sounds like Bill Davis.


Benno Friesen: It can sound like whomever you wish. If my socialist friend wishes to align me with Bill Davis, I certainly do not mind it. However, I do not want to be aligned with the socialists to my left and in Saskatchewan who want to take away this whole decision-making process and give it to the state. They want to enlarge the bureaucracy and they say, as my friend's leader has done across Canada, that there ought to be more government spending in a period of deficit financing.
If this government would really like to help the poor, they had better cut back on their deficit financing and their waste. Because every time a dollar is wasted it is a dollar that is taken away from the poor of this country. The Auditor General's report last week pointed out that the government wastes many dollars as, for example, where they allowed the cost of icebreakers to multiply six times through uncontrolled accounting and uncontrolled spending. As soon as they allow those costs to escalate six times, they are taking those dollars away from the poor in our country who really need the money. This government cannot justify and honestly explain how their Liberal philosophy is helping the poor when at the same time they carry on this kind of waste.
Mr. Simon goes on to talk about what it costs in New York to carry on the operations of that debt-ridden city. He pointed out that much of it was a kind of collusion between civil servants, the unionized workers and government officials-the
Health Resources Fund Act
dishonest politicians who did not want to call a spade a spade. What this country needs more than anything else is a political will to make hard decisions.


Monique Bégin: Bill C-2 is one of them. Why don't you approve of it?


Benno Friesen: The minister interrupts. I wish that she would participate and tell us all the implications of this bill. If the government is really serious about helping the poor in this country, why don't they do something?
An example of the way they are not helping the poor is illustrated by the social conditions the native Indians of our country must face. The 1971 census showed that there were approximately 295,000 native Indians in Canada.


Dennis Dawson: Talk about the Grey Cup.


Benno Friesen: If the members would let me finish my speech, maybe they would learn something.


Monique Bégin: We will try.


Benno Friesen: I know that the minister will try because I have sat with her on committee and I think she shows a good deal of logic. I think that some of her senior officials have sold her a bill of goods, but I respect her and her ability to deal with her concepts.
There were approximately 295,000 native Indians in Canada in 1971. In 1975 there were approximately 12,000 civil servants in the Department of Indian Affairs and northern Development providing services to these native Indians, approximately one civil servant for every 24 Indians. I wonder, does it really take that many people to administer the budget of the department of Indian affairs? This department with its staff of
12.000	in 1975 included 59 Indians. Now there are almost
6.000	native Indians on the staff of the department of Indian affairs.
The fact is that the money in this department is not being spent on the native Indians who need it. It is not helping the poor and people who really need help, but the middle class. The native Indians are not getting the money; the people working in the department are using it in the administration of those funds. It is for reasons like this that 43 per cent of every dollar in our country is spent on government.
With this kind of overhead we cannot possibly be helping the poor in this country. When we say we are giving the poor a dollar, we are really giving them only 60 cents. Because of our high inflation, government waste and this government's propensity to spend money where it is not needed, or to overlook or run short of money in areas where it is really needed, the poor are not getting the money the government says it is giving them. There is no way a 50 or 60-cent dollar for the poor can be justified. As a matter of fact, statistics indicate that in 1968 the dollar was valued at 49.9 cents but those statistics did not look very good around 1970 or 1971, and we changed the plumb line for evaluating the dollar. When that did not look very good around 1974, we changed it again. Rather than deal

November 28, 1978
Health Resources Fund Act
with the economy in such a way that we preserve the dollar and give it some buying power, we are actually taking money away from the poor by this continuation of wasteful practices by the government.
Another matter that comes to my attention is that authorities are predicting that in the year ending in April, 1979 there will be about 27,000 bankruptcies in this country. Only 6,000 of those will be businesses; the rest of them will be personal bankruptcies. I think all of us will agree that small business is the most labour intensive part of our economy. When we have that kind of bankruptcy rate in our country, surely it is not hard to understand that the fiscal policies this government is engaging in are destroying the purchasing power of the dollar. They are increasing the debt load on the Canadian public. By doing that the government is taking dollars away from the poor. They are the people who need this buying power.
Because of those 27,000 bankruptcies this year the unemployment rolls will increase. This will add to the debt of the unemployment insurance fund and create yet a bigger problem. The Fraser Institute said that spending by all levels of government now amounts to $3,635 per capita. That amount is outrageous. With that kind of expenditure there is no way we can consider ourselves free people. When 40 per cent of our wages is taken away by three levels of government, it means that for two-fifths of our time we are working for somebody else. What do you call that, sir? It certainly is not freedom. It is a kind of serfdom. As I thought about that, my mind went back to the days of serfdom-


Gilbert Parent: Do you have notes?


Benno Friesen: If the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Parent) will pay attention-


Gilbert Parent: I do not know of anybody listening to you.


Benno Friesen: If the hon. member for St. Catharines does not like listening to quotes from William Simon, I will give him a book that he will appreciate, a volume of Encyclopedia Britan-nica; maybe he will accept that.


Gilbert Parent: Are there any pictures in it?


Monique Bégin: Does this relate to Bill C-2?


Benno Friesen: The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) wants to know if 1 am dealing with Bill C-2. I am, the same way that the former minister of urban affairs who is now Minister of Public Works (Mr. Ouellet) was dealing strictly with Bill C-2 the whole time he was speaking.


Monique Bégin: That is the very reason for dealing with Bill C-2.


An hon. Member:: You are hurting. Get some vaseline; it is soothing.


Gilbert Parent: That will go down in Hansard.


Benno Friesen: Do I have the floor, Mr. Speaker? As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted, when taxpayers are spending approximately two-fifths of their time working for someone else, they can hardly consider themselves free. I recall visiting some industries located in my riding during the 1974 election. One manager in particular told me how distraught he was. The man was practically in tears. He said that he could barely keep his machines operating on a Friday night because everyone was leaving. What was the reason for this? The men felt that they should not work on a Friday night because all they would earn would be income tax dollars.


An hon. Member:: They voted NDP.


Benno Friesen: The Casanova who is quoted in the paper as always having a bevy of beautiful women around him said the people in my riding voted NDP. I want him to know that it was an NDP riding before I ran. We turned the vote around by 16,000, which I think is fairly good.


An hon. Member:: Dispense.


Benno Friesen: We will dispense with a few after the next election, sir.


An hon. Member:: Silence is golden.


Benno Friesen: When we are spending almost half of our time working for someone else we can hardly consider our time our own. That is one of the reasons we have productivity problems in Canada. People see there is nothing in it for them. Hon. members opposite are wondering why investment dollars are leaving Canada. My riding borders on the United States and it has one of the largest major ports of entry in it. People tell me that they moved to White Rock because it is closer to the United States. That is very discouraging to hear. But there is a reason for this. People ask why we should invest in our economy if the government takes it all. There is no way that the government can put walls high enough to keep that money here.


Monique Bégin: That is not the reason. There was a strike in the grocery stores in Vancouver. That was the reason.


Benno Friesen: You are two years behind the times, as usual.


Monique Bégin: That is what started it. You are being absolutely dishonest right now.


An hon. Member:: You are distorting the facts.


Benno Friesen: The minister of health is still reverting back to the days when she was minister of national revenue, which brings up another point.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Benno Friesen: That point is the high turnover in this ministry.


An hon. Member:: Where is the order in this place?
November 28, 1978


Benno Friesen: We have had four ministers of health in ten years. When there are so many revolving doors in the ministry there is no way that the best minister of national health and welfare can keep control of that ministry, regardless of how brilliant and dedicated that minister is. If a minister keeps a portfolio for only two years he cannot get a grip on it. I do not blame ministers for that. It is humanly impossible. But there is another reason why costs are escalating. When the upper level decision-makers have control over finances, the minister no longer has control over spending and it is no wonder that costs escalate.
I was trying to get to a point but hon. members opposite are continuously interrupting me. We are forever being criticized as being medieval.


Gilbert Parent: You start out to be.


Benno Friesen: I would like to mention to the member for St. Catharines that actually it is this government that has taken us back to medieval times. The longer I thought about the taxation policies of this government and the degree to which we are burdened with taxation, I could not help but think of the feudal system. There was a time when the people of western Europe were being governed by overlords under the feudal system. One of the conditions of serfdom was spending a certain amount of time working for an overlord.


An hon. Member:: Let us get to the late show.


Benno Friesen: That was a kind of taxation process.


An hon. Member:: Let us have some order.


Benno Friesen: That was a kind of taxation process where these serfs had to work a few days for the overlord. This is what is happening again today. 1 noticed, as I said ten minutes ago before the hon. member for St. Catharines interrupted me, that in the Encyclopedia Britannica there are a couple of paragraphs regarding serfdom. One of the principles of serfdom was that the obligation was the payment to a lord of a head payment, an income tax, a capital tax, or personal tax. The other one, which is very reminiscent of this government and of what this government has imposed upon us, is the obligation of surrendering part of the peasant inheritance to the lord on the death of the servant or subject tenant. What you have there is a capital gains tax or succession duties. We have come full circle. This government has taken us back to the medieval period where we spend our time working for someone else. It has taken the incentive away from the people.
I started out by saying that this government has developed a mentality that wants to initiate programs and get people dependent on them. We have a kind of dependency mentality. Once that dependency has been created, they get into the act and say, "I am sorry, we cannot afford to continue it now."
There is nothing like a pending federal election to clear the vision of the leaders of this government. It is like Murine for the eyes. The election scare of this last year was a lot of
Health Resources Fund Act
Murine for them; it really cleared their vision. All of a sudden they realized there was a taxation revolt, just like Wat Tyler's rebellion. When the serfs had finally had enough, they realized there was a taxation revolt, just like Wat Tyler's rebellion. When the serfs had finally had enough, they said they were tired of working for the overlords. They thought they could pull it off.
There can be a kind of Wat Tyler's rebellion today. Proposition 13 in California signalled the act there. That spilled over into British Columbia. The rest of the provinces have caught on to that idea. All of a sudden this government realized it had a problem on its hands. It could no longer carry the oppressive tax burden, and it shoved it on to the rest of the people because it was not willing to carry it. We had on October 16-


Monique Bégin: What has happened since Proposition 13?


Benno Friesen: We had October 16. That was a kind of Wat Tyler's rebellion, telling this government it could no longer pull these kinds of deals, that the taxpayer is no longer willing to carry those burdens. They have said that they have had enough.
I want to go on record as saying that this government deserves a steady stream of denunciations for the kind of policies it has foisted on to the provinces, now wanting them to carry the full load of the burden. Yesterday the premier of my province said to the first ministers that rather than have a redistribution of the wealth, which incidentally this minister wants to carry on with all the time, we ought to have a redistribution of the opportunities. I agree with that. I know that the people of Canada want to express themselves in an entrepreneurial spirit. I know they have the vision. 1 know that given release from the oppression and burdens which this government has placed on them, there will be an infusion of spirit across the country. Once we take away the disincentives that this government has loaded on them, we will see a new spirit born in this land.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I wanted to ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Ouellet) to table the document from which he quoted during his remarks. I gather that the document that he held in his hand while he was quoting, was a speech which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) made to a meeting with the provincial ministers of finance. The minister has now left the House. However, I think it is possible that he be ordered to table it even though he is not here in person.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member might have been right if he had raised the point in due time. I do not think his point of order is valid at this time. It would be impossible for the Chair to bring back the minister and ask him to table it. The minister might have referred to some document; however, the practice provides for members' interventions to take place immediately.

November 28, 1978
Health Resources Fund Act


Paul Yewchuk: The minister was indeed reading from a document which he identified in his comments as coming from the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. 1 do not quarrel with that. However, the hon. member should have got up at that time and requested the minister to table the document. It could have been identified while the minister had it in his hand. The minister is not here and the document is not here. It is impossible to have the document now.
Before I recognize the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), I wish to inform the House that if she speaks at this time, she will close the debate.


Monique Bégin: I think, Mr. Speaker, that I have two minutes left before ten o'clock, and I will use them to correct some of the wrong impressions created by the opposition and which are laden with consequences. For example, they related the health of Indians, which is one of our priorities, to the fact that this act is being repealed two years before its legal termination, after 12 years of a well-functioning health resources fund. That makes no sense. That is a blatant lie to the Canadian public. I would like to clarify that. The health resources fund is a $500 million shared cost fund which was used to 85 per cent of its capacity in the last 12 years and which was due, in any case, to terminate in two years. The provinces, whose economy is in the same state as on the national scene, do not have the money to pay their share of what is left of the Fund.
We therefore, took a wise decision, which we made with regret, but which is a totally responsible one. We have honoured, and I emphasize this, all the contracts which were signed, and all bills will be paid within three years; I have signed all offers which were submitted and considered acceptable by the government. Therefore, no province will suffer from this premature suspension of the Health Resources Fund.
I have stated that there were projects for Prince Edward Island, two projects for Manitoba, including the Seven Oaks General Hospital in Winnipeg, and the Calgary children's hospital, for which I have just signed a supplementary submission.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We deeply regret that we did not know the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) wanted to speak. We would have given her at least half an hour of her precious time to tell us exactly what she wanted to say this evening.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please, it being ten o'clock, it is my duty, pursuant to special order made this evening, to put the question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of Bill C-2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to the special order adopted by the House earlier, the division stands deferred until tomorrow on calling of the orders of the day.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. F. A Philbrook (Halton): Mr. Speaker, on November 17, I posed a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) on family planning programs. It involved specifically my concern about these programs being cut back, based on a cut in the budget of almost half, from $2.1 million to $1.1 million, and therefore a substantial cutback in these important activities. I also mentioned these savings were illusory because equivalent expenses would be created of at least that amount or maybe greater. Certainly prevention was better than teenage pregnancies, certainly unwanted ones, and an increase in therapeutic abortions, which are increasing anyway.
I did not realize it at that time but the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Feggatt) asked a similar question on November 10, seven days before, in which he mentioned that legal abortions had increased by 5.5 per cent in the previous year. I had asked the minister whether she could possibly reconsider the situation. The hon. member for New Westminster had already asked her whether she would restore the funds available to the amount originally to be provided, that is, to $2.1 million.
We understand the difficulty the minister faces, along with all members of the government, in trying to balance, on one hand, the effect of spending restraint against the benefits of very worth-while programs, on the other hand. I think the minister has been very fair and reasonably effective in this
November 28, 1978
[Stage Direction]
area. She is certainly one who supports social programs very strongly. Strong representations have come to her from the community, from voluntary associations such as the Family Planning Association and, of course, from other parliamentarians along the lines I have indicated.
The minister's attention was also drawn to an article which appeared in the Toronto Star of October 20 entitled "The Teenage Pregnancy Explosion". That article emphasized the appalling consequences of unwanted pregnancies, the danger to the mother, whether or not she went through with the pregnancy, and to any children which might be born. It dealt with the related problem of child abuse and so on. We realize that this situation of immature mothers with, in some cases, unwanted children imposes a heavy burden on municipal and provincial welfare systems. The federal government has played a very important role in recent years in attempting to relieve this burden.
Certain aspects of what I am discussing are, evidently, similar to those which arise from the bill we have been debating here during the last two days and on which I spoke today, Bill C-2, the health resources fund bill, which imposes a serious restriction in an area where nobody wants to cut back, namely health training and research.
There is a similar dilemma here. Of course, whatever expenditure the provinces incur in the running of these programs, the federal government pays half. We realize this. It is a dilemma and we appreciate the difficult position in which the minister finds herself. But the human need is one which remains the responsibility of all three levels of government working together with private volunteer organizations.
As in any important matter, the federal government is looked to for leadership. Voluntary organizations always rely partly on government support, particularly federal government support. They need to know where they stand, particularly with regard to forward budgeting. I refer to organizations such as Planned Parenthood of Canada and other so-called non-government organizations.
I would like to refer briefly to another dimension which is especially important to me as well as to other hon. members: our international activities and the business of Canada's setting an international example. Just recently the united fund for population activities for the first time organized a world-wide group of parliamentarians to work on the problem of population development in third world countries. The problem involves more than just population; it involves family planning and all the social programs related to that. It even involves economic development programs. I feel very honoured to have been elected secretary-general of this group, and therefore I feel a special responsibility.
Countries around the world, especially third world countries,
look to Canada as an example. They look to Canada to help
them with their problems. The help we give them reflects our
Adjournment Debate
own domestic situation and how we handle different but delicate matters such as population and family planning. I know this is a difficult problem. I would simply like to ask the minister to consider, within whatever limitations we have at this level, working with the provinces and volunteer agencies to make sure, even if we cannot spend as much money as we have spent, that we still try to get the job done and not cut back on important family planning programs.
Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook) on bringing the important matter of family planning before the House of Commons once again. The matter needs to be considered. I think all hon. members would agree that family planning is something about which we must be more concerned because of the tremendous population growth today.
Further to the question raised by the hon. member for Halton on November 17, I would like to add the following comments. The reduction in family planning grants for 19791980 is firm. The minister has no intention to review the cutbacks already announced since these reductions were based on very careful consideration of all the options available.
The minister does, of course, recognize the importance of prevention and the concern of the hon. member for the continuation of family planning services. I would like to remind the hon. member that these services are a provincial responsibility and that the Department of National Health and Welfare, through its special grants, has ensured that services are available for the residents of each province and territory.
In addition, welfare services are to be shared under the Canada Assistance Plan when provided by provincially-approved agencies-which are listed in an agreement under the Canada Assistance Plan-either to persons in need or to persons who are likely to become in need if they do not receive the services they require. Likelihood of need is determined on the basis of economic as well as social need criteria.
With regard to family planning services, certain services such as information, referrals and counselling have been accepted as welfare services for cost-sharing purposes under the Canada Assistance Plan. The essential point relative to cost sharing in welfare services is that federal contributions are made toward agency costs associated with the provision of such services.
The cost associated with providing family planning means- for example, the pill or IUDS-are cost-shared through the assistance provision of the Canada Assistance Plan when provided as items of assistance to persons in need.
In summary, 1 would like to assure the hon. member that the social services and health systems of the provinces will continue to receive the necessary funding to provide family planning services on a preventive basis to those in need.

November 28, 1978
Adjournment Debate


URBAN AFFAIRS-INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE TO STUDY URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I want to respond tonight to an answer given to me by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) on November 15 when I questioned him in the House concerning the senior interdepartmental committee on urban affairs. I have with me tonight a copy of a report dated September, 1975. I asked the minister why this committee of deputy ministers has not met since 1975. It is important that this committee meet because when the Minister of State for Urban Affairs was first conceived, it was to be a co-ordinating ministry. The minister's function was to be only that which would co-ordinate activities related to housing and would include the co-ordination of programs affecting some ten other ministries. That was the promise given to the House of Commons when, some eight years ago, the government created the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs.
1 have here a confidential cabinet document dated July 3, 1973 when the cabinet discussed the need for this co-ordinating committee of deputy heads to discharge the mandate given to them by parliament which requires a high and continuing degree of interdepartmental consultation at the senior level-I am reading from this document. I also have another confidential cabinet document dated July 17, 1973, just a couple of weeks later. According to this document, the cabinet decided that it was critically important, in order to make the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs work effectively as a co-ordinating ministry, that there be established a senior interdepartmental committee on urban affairs to be composed of deputy heads. These were not just joe-boys or boys from the mail room; these were deputy ministers.
That is how important this committee was. Some of the responsibilities of that committee were to meet no less than twice a year at the call of the chairman; that is the deputy minister of state for urban affairs. Now that deputy head is Bill Teron. It was to assist in the preparation of, and to present to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, the transmittal to cabinet of an annual review and evaluation of the range of federal programs which have significantly affected the urbanization of Canada. To this date we have had only one such report.
I maintain, sir, that one of the reasons this government is following the suggestion of the official opposition that the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs should be wound down is, that they failed to have the departmental heads meet as they were supposed to. You cannot have a ministry whose job it is to co-ordinate and report to the House of Commons through the minister not knowing whether or not they are doing the job of co-ordination. The only way to evaluate the efficiency of the ministry and of the programs that ministry was co-ordinating was to have an evaluation; but the people who were to do that job, the deputy heads, did not meet. So there was confusion and mismanagement. As a result the government decided, because the ministry has not been working, to disband it.

I commend the government for that decision because it is exactly what we on this side suggested a year and a half ago, namely, that the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs be dismantled because it has not been effective in co-ordinating the various programs. But the difference between what they are doing and what we would have done is simple. The government announced out of the blue this great revelation, this great turnabout last Friday, and not a province in the country knew it. No one knew it except the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the minister involved. It is that kind of mentality that has characterized this government-on-again-off-again, without consultation with the provinces.
On page 31 of the report of the western premiers task force on constitutional trends of last May, it is stated that in the broad area of housing consultation has been virtually nonexistent. They disband a whole ministry dealing with the whole range of programs in which the federal government involved the provinces, without even asking the provinces what they thought of the dismantling of the entire Ministry of State for Urban Affairs. It is that kind of irresponsible reflex action by the government that has put it into the position it enjoys today with the Canadian public. Now the Canadian public is determined to get rid of the government.
I applaud the government for innovative programs such as CHIP, NIP, RRAP and AHOP. If the government survived another couple of years, we would have had jump, skip and a lot of others. No program is meaningful unless it is evaluated. The government should take a second look at its programs to see whether they work, and if it was a targeted program, whether it had the effectiveness on the target area for which it was conceived. The government did not do that. It brought in a program of graduated payment mortgages, not knowing whether AHOP worked. There were massive defaults in AHOP. A senior departmental group was supposed to meet and evaluate these programs, and now the government is graduating payment mortgages. Right in the middle of all the new changes, the government said, "Sorry, boys, we are going to dismantle the ministry.'' That is an irresponsible government. Given the opportunity, at the drop of a writ we will replace them.


Mr. Hal Herbert (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, of course the allegations of the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway) are completely false, and as wild and discriminatory as the Tory suggestion that mortgage interest should be deductible.
He tied in with his question on November 15 some allegations concerning AHOP defaults, which he mentioned again tonight. AHOP defaults obviously are greater than the defaults on conventional mortgages. He tied in defaults with walkaways. There is a difference which perhaps one day he will learn. He tied in defaults with conventional mortgage problems. As the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott) alleged, there is an increase in defaults on AHOP mortgages because we are attempting to help people who have
November 28, 1978

less money in their pockets and therefore are more likely to default.
The senior interdepartmental committee on urban affairs was formed in 1973 to assist in the preparation of an annual review and evaluation of the range of federal programs which significantly affect the urbanization of Canada. Also it was to assist the Department of Urban Affairs in advising the Treasury Board secretariat and the Privy Council office on policy and program proposals of federal departments and agencies which could have a significant impact on urbanization and urban development patterns.
The department, jointly with relevant federal departments and agencies, chaired both the senior steering and working groups in undertaking the work on the social policy on shelter. By working with the Department of Public Works, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and other relevant departments, the Department of Urban Affairs played an important role in making federal investments in specific areas more effective to provincial and municipal concerns.
At the standing committee this morning, the minister answered the hon. member for Selkirk by indicating that when "officials of the various departments were doing things which had an effect on urban development in the cities, they were naturally automatically consulting the ministry". Also he indicated that there have been a number of meetings involving officials of various departments to study the over-all performance of the government in terms of housing and in terms of shelter.
The Department of Urban Affairs effectively fulfilled its role for which it was created, that of co-ordinating delivery of federal urban-oriented policies and programs and of identifying priority concerns.
1 hope this is the last we hear of defaults in the AHOP program. Since defaults in conventional mortgages have been extremely small, to the point where we do not require the 1 per cent coverage on these mortgages, naturally the defaults in the AHOP program will be greater.
grain-MOVEMENT OF GRAIN-PURCHASE OF HOPPER CARS


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my comments tonight refer to the fact that the Canadian Wheat Board has put out tenders to purchase 500 to 2,000 hopper cars. I maintain that the Wheat Board was blackmailed into doing that by the fact that the railways of this country are on strike when it comes to purchasing more hopper cars. In other words, they are not doing it. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board has his hands tied by restraint and, therefore, he is not doing it either.
For the first time ever the producers, namely, the farmers of western Canada, are in the position where they, through their wheat boards, have to purchase between 500 and 2,000 hopper cars. I maintain that is a very, very dangerous precedent, a precedent that is being set which may end up being carried on.
Adjournment Debate
I think it is wrong. What other commodity group has to purchase the cars to move their goods? Do General Motors have to do it? Do big companies have to do it? Do the fishermen have to do this, or do other people have to do it? I maintain that in most cases the answer is no. Therefore, it is very dangerous to ask farmers to do it.
I want to give a few background facts showing why we are in this type of situation today, why the railroads have been blackmailing the Wheat Board, and why the government has been implicit in this action. First of all, the capacity to move grain in this country has been slipping drastically. In 1972 we had 22,000 boxcars. By July 31, 1978 we were down to 12,800 boxcars. In the meantime, the federal government had purchased some 8,000 hopper cars. One hopper car equals about 1.5 boxcars in terms of grain moving capacity. Therefore, if you add in the 8,000 hopper cars in terms of capacity to the 12,800 boxcars, our capacity would equal about 24,800 boxcars. Therefore, even though the government has purchased 8,000 hopper cars, we still had less grain moving capacity than we had in 1972 before that purchase. As a matter of fact, the system has a two-million bushel less carrying capacity today than it did in 1972.
To make matters worse, we need more hopper cars and grain cars for the future. The Wheat Board says we need 9,000 more cars. The Wheat Board breaks it down this way: We need 4,000 more hopper cars and we need to repair some 5,000 boxcars.
Forest Hetland, who is a commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board, said that by 1985 Canada could be exporting about 20 million tonnes of wheat and ten million tonnes of feed grains. He said that 4,000 new hopper cars could generate over $700 million each year in increased export sales and foreign exchange earnings. Mr. Hetland went on to say that even at a cost of $50,000 each, or $200 million total, for these hopper cars this would still be a good long-term investment for Canada.
Charlie Gibbings, another commissioner of the Wheat Board, was quoted by the Leader Post as saying that car supply is the most immediate problem. He said that 20,000 hopper cars and 5,000 boxcars will be needed to meet the 1985 target of moving 30 million tonnes of grain.
Then we have Commissioner Kristjanson, assistant chief commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board, a 19-year veteran with the Wheat Board, 13 years as a commissioner and therefore a man who knows a great deal about the business, who is confident that the board could achieve export sales of 30 million tonnes by 1985, which is a 50 per cent increase, if transportation systems improved. We need three essential ingredients, he suggested. We need a fleet of 20,000 grain hopper cars, a 20,000-tonne terminal facility at Prince Rupert and an improved system of rail delivery through the Rockies to the west coast. It is obvious we need more than a faster turnaround time, although we need that too. We need some 20,000 hopper cars and 5,000 boxcars to meet our target for 1985.

November 28, 1978
Adjournment Debate
What I am saying to the government now is that we need these hopper cars and we need them very fast. The fact that we do not have them now means we have lost sales. Our current inability to deliver has cost the Canadian farmers about $350 million in lost sales this year. Farmers have also lost about $25 million in demurrage charges this year because of the backlog, due to hopper cars and boxcars not being available. Last year, according to the advisory committee to the Canadian Wheat Board, transportation delays cost the Canadian farmer about $150 million.
Then we have the China sale. We sold around three million tonnes of grain to China this year. The Wheat Board tells me we could have sold around four million tonnes if we had had the proper facilities to move the grain. If we were really doing things well we could have sold about six million tonnes, as that is the amount of grain the Chinese wanted to buy. As it is, Canada sold about 21 million tonnes of grain in the last crop year. We could do a lot better. The main problem is that the railways are not providing the service they should to western farmers.
I am sure that the parliamentary secretary is very embarrassed about the government handouts to railways. The branch line subsidy to the railways by this government last year was $90 million, and the savings to the railway on the cost of capital and depreciation for government hopper cars, which are supplied by the government, was $35.7 million. The saving to the railway on the cost of capital and depreciation for branch line rehabilitation was $98 million, and on the cost of capital and depreciation on Canadian Wheat Board hopper cars $14 million. This amounts to a subsidy from this Santa Claus government of $237.7 million per year. At the same time the railway profits for the first nine months of 1978 were $163 million. In the new budget they will be getting another tax subsidy of 7 per cent for an investment tax credit on transportation equipment.
If we look at the subsidies the railways have received from this government and the profits they have made, there is no reason why they should not be supplying the hopper cars and repairing the boxcars, or that the farmers of western Canada or the Wheat Board area farmers should be purchasing between 500 and 2,000 hopper cars out of their own money. It is a dangerous precedent that should not be allowed to happen. The government has an obligation to force the railways to purchase those cars, and if it cannot force the railways, then it has the obligation to provide the cars itself.
[ Translation]


Mr. Charles Lapointe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it is worth remembering that over the last five years the government has added 8,000 hopper cars to the grain transportation network at an approximate cost of $260 million. It is also worth mentioning that during the past two years an amount of $170 million has been invested to improve railways in the prairie provinces and that

the government is committed to earmark another $500 million in the next five or seven years to complete the upgrading of railways throughout western Canada.
When the railway companies tell us that they have enough hopper cars and boxcars for the transportation of grain, it is then a matter of interpretation and also a very complex issue. The minister stated today that he does not quite agree with the Canadian Pacific for instance which is of the opinion that the required number of cars is presently in use throughout the Canadian Pacific network. The minister has even offered a new arrangement to this company and to the Canadian National for the joint financing of a car repair program.
As I stated earlier, Mr. Speaker, this issue concerning the number of cars which might be needed is further complicated by the fact that it boils down to the question of knowing how many round trips are made by the cars between the prairies and Thunder Bay on the one side and the west coast on the other side. One also has to know if we have the minimum number of cars required to satisfy regular needs or if we have at our disposal the required number which would meet the requirements of a peak season when necessary, even if it is only a matter of five or six weeks during the grain shipment period.
The railway companies have suggested that the required number of cars is available, yet it remains rather difficult to determine in advance how many cars will be needed.
The Canadian Wheat Board and the minister, as he stated himself this afternoon, are convinced that more cars will be needed in a rather near future. The Canadian Wheat Board may differ with the railway companies in its interpretation of what constitutes a sufficient number of cars. The board must be concerned about the fact that it could have to pay demurrage charges. Consequently, the cars that the board would purchase would enable it to avoid paying demurrage charges during future peak periods on the market. For their part, the producers share the concerns of the board and, through their representatives on the Canadian Wheat Board, they accepted in principle this purchase proposal when the board consulted them. I also want to mention or emphasize the other initiatives taken by the minister in this regard. Since the branch line rehabilitation program is now being implemented, cars presently available and those that the board could acquire later on will be put to a better and more effective use.
As for ensuring a better use of the whole system, the minister reminded the House this afternoon during oral question period that he has appointed an analyst to study grain handling and transport operations and to make suggestions to improve these operations. The very recent up-date of the Snavely report, which was published a while ago, shows that major improvements have already been made as concerns the use of railway cars. Nevertheless, we must determine whether it is possible to do more and to make other improvements in the near future.
November 28, 1978

Adjournment Debate


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.33 p.m., now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House without question put, pursuant to Standing Order, stands adjourned until two o'clock p.m. tomorrow.

Wednesday, November 29, 1978