1979-02-05

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity having to do with a judgment by the Ontario Court of Appeal on a motion as to whether a member of the legislature-and this applies, of course, to members of parliament-must disclose his confidential source of information.
The finding of the court was that information supplied to a member in confidence is not privileged from being revealed and, as the Globe and Mail points out in an historic landmark editorial in today's issue, the ending of protection against having to reveal confidential information given to members of parliament will pretty well put a stop to information being available. This is no criticism of the majority judgment of the court. That is the law now. But I ask leave, sir, to quote from the dissenting judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice Weatherston. He said in part:
It has long been a major part of his (a member's) responsibilities to intercede on behalf of his constituents who claim to be oppressed by governmental bureaucracy and to bring to the notice of the government cases where legislation is thought to be working unfairly ... In all these cases the member may rely on information given to him in confidence. His effectiveness as a member may depend on confidences given and received, and the courts should respect those confidences unless the public interest clearly compels a breach of them.
This judgment, as I see it, will go a long way to emasculating parliament. Unless action is taken and legislation passed that members shall not be required to reveal their confidential sources of information, the lips of many Canadians will be sealed. All through the years I have personally taken the stand that under no circumstances would I reveal such information, and I think that is the general feeling of members of the House of Commons.
I would, therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski):
That this House assert the right of members to secure information confidentially and not be required, except in cases of treason or felony, to reveal the sources thereof.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John George Diefenbaker: The Deputy Prime Minister said "No".


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the matter I wish to raise has been urgent for a long time, but there is increasing urgency for action to be taken before this parliament comes to an end.
Therefore, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), I move:
That this House calls on the Minister of Veterans Affairs to present at an early date his promised review of the War Veterans Allowance Act so that legislation to improve the provisions and increase the amounts paid thereunder can be introduced and passed before the present session of parliament is ended.


Mr. Speaker:: The introduction of such a motion for debate, pursuant to Standing Order 43, requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.

February 5, 1979
In view of the fact that the government of Maine is increasingly promoting wood cutting on its own lands; considering that this will affect several Canadian companies which hold permits for wood cutting on the American side and that eventually hundreds of jobs will be lost, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That parliament urge the super Board of Economic Development Ministers to consider that problem and draw up policies furthering the development of industries in areas situated along the American border so that they will be in a position, when necessary, to offer jobs to Canadians who will become unemployed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, presentation of that motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mrs. Jean E. Pigott (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In light of charges that CMHC operates on a system of patronage, and in view of a suggested lack of auditing control which is alleged to have resulted in millions of unaccounted taxpayer dollars being lost, stolen and mismanaged, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway):
That this House immediately instruct the Auditor General of Canada to undertake a detailed inspection of the financial management operations and computer operations of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the preceding fiscal year and, further, that this House direct the Minister of State for Urban Affairs immediately to make a reference to the appropriate standing committee to investigate the alleged financial mismanagement and control practices of this Crown corporation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CONGRATULATIONS TO CANADIAN WOMEN'S FIGURE SKATING CHAMPION-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier):
That this House congratulates Janet Morrissey, the new Canadian women's figure skating champion, for her outstanding victory at Thunder Bay, the fourth woman from Ottawa to win this title.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt).


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent necessity concerning my constituency, and particularly the establishment by the CBC of both English and French language FM stations at Maitland, near Brockville, Ontario, and the fact that the operation of such stations has drastically interfered with television and radio reception by hundreds of people living in the area, resulting in the closing down of such facilities temporarily by the CBC.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka (Mr. Darling):
That the government guarantee that such FM facilities will not be placed in full operation, other than for temporary testing purposes, until all technical difficulties have been ironed out, and that if such a thing proves to be, as it now seems to appear, impossible, that the government will order the CBC immediately to remove these two totally unnecessary white elephants which have cost taxpayers thousands of dollars.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the presentation of such a motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport: it arises out of the very serious deterioration of air safety in Canada and the further erosion which has been caused by the current dispute
February 5, 1979

which has been going on between the aviation inspectors and Treasury Board.
This dispute has contributed to a large number of inspectors leaving their jobs, 60 to date; furthermore, members are leaving on a day to day basis, morale has been declining in this very important component of the air transportation industry, and that situation has deteriorated as a result of this dispute. There are clear indications that major violations are frequently occurring and are not being adequately investigated as a result of shortage of manpower. The most respected aviation trade magazine-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should put his question.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is very important to lay the groundwork and the foundation because-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It may be so, but only limited time is available in the question period so the hon. member should put his question.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Since Canada's record of air safety has declined in performance and it is now thirteenth on the list of 18 nations in the world, having been in eighth place on that list, and since the Minister of Transport has over-all-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: May I ask the minister, since the matter has been drawn to his attention on frequent occasions, what actions his department is taking to ensure, first of all, that the erosion of safety is reversed and, further, what action he has taken with respect to his cabinet colleagues in terms of specifically encouraging a settlement to the dispute which is causing the deteriorating factor?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I think it is unfortunate that the hon. member speaks about deterioration of safety in those generalized terms when he has no basis whatever for making the assertion.
I certainly agree that the group in these negotiations with the employer, the government, at the moment is a very important group in our air operations and I am looking forward to a settlement. These matters are under negotiation and, obviously, I would not comment on these negotiations either with regard to comments between myself and my colleagues or as between the parties.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The facts are clearly stated in this very respected magazine and, indeed, by people in the minister's own department. On December 5, the Minister of Transport indicated that additional inspectors would be hired to perform this very important task. We now know that there has been a reduction of inspectors.
May I ask the minister why there has been a reduction in inspectors, rather than an increase to which he previously
Oral Questions
committed himself, and what action he has taken to fulfil the commitment he made in December of 1977?


Otto Emil Lang: Once again, the hon. member insists on distorting the situation terribly and 1 really think it is not very helpful. The commitment which I made in December of 1977 related to an increase in the number of inspectors in particular areas of the country. The increases have taken place and we have had far fewer complaints from those areas since that time.
Obviously, the whole question of how many inspectors we have is itself part of the argument and of the negotiation. Obviously, those people who form a part of this group are interested in making clear how important their work is, and magazines and statements may reflect that fact. I do not think the hon. member should be drawn into that kind of debate, any more than he should expect me to be drawn into it while negotiations are going on.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not distorting the facts, but simply drawing attention to the failure of the minister to fulfil his commitment: that is the fact of the matter. What is happening is that there seems to be a deliberate ploy or a deliberate attempt on the part of the federal government to downgrade the effectiveness and integrity of the inspection group.
In view of the fact that this is the most vital group in terms of the administration of air safety in this country, why has he not, first of all, undertaken to fulfil his commitment to strengthen and, indeed, provide more manpower, provide fair wages and clearly define his role, rather than allowing the group to deteriorate? Is that a specific government policy, is it by design, or is it by accident?


Otto Emil Lang: The hon. member thinks he supports his case by restating what is false in terms of any commitment on my part. It was a commitment in relation to the northern Ontario situation and the number of inspectors in that region, and that commitment has been carried out. So I wish the hon. member would stop stating these falsehoods and then coming back and repeating them.
[DOT] (M20)
The fact of the matter is that this is an important group. As well, the hon. member knows its negotiations and returns to it over the last several years were caught in particular rules under the Anti-Inflation Board program and that that created certain difficulties. Can these now be resolved? That is a matter which is precisely under negotiation at this time. Of course, the hon. member can be friends to everyone by stating irresponsible amounts which he thinks may be correct. Fortunately, he is irresponsible and I hope he remains that way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

February 5, 1979
Oral Questions


SETTLEMENT WITH UNION TO AVOID FURTHER DETERIORATION OF AIR SAFETY
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, assuming the minister accepts the proposition that Canadians are entitled not only to safe air passage but to an awareness that they will fly safely when they are aboard aeroplanes, will he not respond to a very legitimate question and reassure Canadians and the particular inspection group that something will be done before the cautionary words of the union come to bear regrettable fruit in terms of a very serious accident?
Will the minister not do something, take some position and urge his colleagues to join him so that the prediction of the particular union, that the serious downgrading of safety inspection standards could lead to a serious accident, in fact will not take place?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, every activity has its risks and obviously no one can guarantee against that. If the hon. member is trying to lay some base that if there turns out to be an accident in Canada, it is related to this matter, he should know it is a rather wild generalization made in advance.
Of course I am concerned about safety in Canada. I am happy to say generally I can be very reassuring in terms of the performance of our airlines, our pilots and everyone operating the air travel system so that Canadians need not be concerned. On the other hand, obviously the question of the particular grievances of these individuals is under negotiation and must await the result.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, if the minister consults with his colleagues he will find negotiations, in fact, have broken off and that they have done nothing to correct it.
In light of the comments of the union arising out of this developing situation, what is the minister doing to reassure Canadians that, in fact, it will not worsen to the point where a serious accident could arise because inspection services are not being carried out adequately? That is the question.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, obviously inspection work and all important tasks in connection with it are ongoing.


J. Michael Forrestall: All?


Otto Emil Lang: I hope the hon. member is not suggesting or voicing a threat that some of that will not be done as part of the bargaining process, whether or not the actual negotiations are going forward. I cannot meet all the various statements which may be made by people, but I can attempt to reassure the public they ought not to listen to the two hon. members who have attempted to raise the issue of safety as though there is some new problem of a serious nature in this regard.


An hon. Member:: You are being irresponsible in this regard.


Otto Emil Lang: Indeed, Canadian levels of safety are very good.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council. According to reports of this past weekend, beef prices in Canada will increase by a full 18 cents a pound by the end of this week compared to the price per pound of last week. This increase will be the most dramatic in the history of Canadian beef prices.
Keeping in mind the AIB announcement last week that food prices rose a full 19 per cent last year, I ask the Deputy Prime Minister when the House can expect to hear from the government on the promise of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs last week that the government intended to do something about constantly escalating food prices in the country.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member, I read the weekend press which described the price paid for beef on Friday and the projected effect this price may have on retail levels. No one is certain, but I am not using that as a method of escaping from the prospect that beef prices indeed may increase.
As the hon. member knows, we have already taken steps to increase import quotas and to assist consumers who may be faced with rising prices. I have also read what the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said last week in the House, that in respect of a number of situations he would like to check them out and report back to the hon. member. I will attempt to ensure that this is done.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, these are the same promises of future investigations from the Deputy Prime Minister that we have received for the past three weeks from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In the meantime, prices keep going up, not down.
Has the government considered the implications of the report a few weeks ago of the Economic Council, which showed profits per unit of output in the food and beverage industry had risen some 65 per cent in 18-month period ending in the third quarter of 1978, and that profits during the same period went up to the "highest level in the last 15 years"?
Given that this is the clearest possible evidence of excess profiteering, and given the fact that the head of the agency which made this report said that in view of these profit increases, firms should show restraint in the months ahead, will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us what, specifically, the government plans to do to ensure that price restraint is exercised so that consumers will see some levelling off in these increases?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it may be the hon. member, in referring to the increased level of beef prices, should bear in
February 5, 1979

mind that there is a delicate relationship between the supply of beef products and the consumer price. If he had read in more detail over the weekend, he would understand that one of the reasons prices are rising at the present time is because of a decrease in supply following a reluctance on the part of cattlemen in previous years, resulting from lower prices, to build up their herds.
The hon. member has to take a more balanced and broad view on price movements rather than just focusing on immediate consumer interests which are not the only interests involved in this situation. As I have said to the hon. member, we have taken some steps already during this current parliament to assist consumers in respect of increasing prices.
Having regard to the report to which the hon. member has referred, I regret to advise him that I have not read it, I do not have the statistics at my fingertips and I will not say that I have given consideration to the various statistical points he has made.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister took a long time in giving an answer to the question I put to him in the first place. The question I should like him to deal with now is the broader one regarding food price increases.
The Economic Council of Canada has indicated that profits in that industry for the last 18 months, going into the third quarter of 1978, were up 91 per cent, and that price increases for the same period have gone up 65 per cent. The head of the institute that produced the study on behalf of the government indicated that measures should be taken now to keep prices down, because profits are very high.
I should like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister specifically in this area whether the government intends to bring forward particular measures which will respond to the requests that price increases be kept down in coming months because profits have already been excessively high in the past 18 months.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that if the government were to embark upon a new policy of price controls, that would be announced in the House in the normal way. It is not my intention, in replying to his question, to go down the garden path that has been laid out and described by the hon. member.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, I shall direct my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Oral Questions
As our neighbours, the Americans, especially in the state of Maine, are using and sawing their lumber on American territory, which situation will eventually lead to a considerable decrease in sawmill operations on the Canadian side, and as this development can be foreseen even now, would the minister be willing to recommend to his colleagues of the new economic council that they look into this matter seriously and have talks with the American leaders, after which if the situation is confirmed and that policy is maintained, they set up new industries on the Canadian side of the border in order to be able, when the time comes, to offer employment to all those Canadians who will necessarily lose their jobs in the States?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the difficulties certain changes in the regulations governing the lumber industry on the American side are creating for our own Canadian industries, especially in the Bois Franc and Beauce areas.
I have met some of the industrialists concerned who acquainted me with the change in policy from which the problem stems. During coming negotiations, in agreement with the government, especially in this case, we shall have to examine how we could supply from other sources those industries whose operations involve the transformation of timber, and furniture in particular, so that they can get their supplies from other Canadian sources if they can no longer do so from American ones.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
That is an excellent step and I hope it will be successful. But since there certainly will not be enough companies and industries to hire all workers, and as I am acutely aware of the situation, since it is also affecting my riding, and as the potential sources of wood are somewhat limited, I would like to ask the minister if, while he is studying the matter, he could look at the possibility of establishing a special policy, like the one that exists in other regions known as "designated areas", in order to further encourage small and medium sized firms, promote the creation of new ones and help us maintain our population, which is faced with a fairly heavy tax burden, at its present level.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I am very much impressed by the hon. member's representations. We cannot in fact think that our forest resources are limitless; indeed certain firms which use this prime resource will probably reach a ceiling of development in the next few years. That is why my department is actively searching out new firms using other resources than forestry. In the case, for example, of the Eastern Townships and the lower St. Lawrence, and we can also include the Chaudiere region, there is an impressive rise of small businesses engaged in the processing of metals used for the manufacture of parts marketed not only in Canada but also in other countries, and I think this is a move in the right direction, which should allow us to come to grips with the issue raised by the hon. member.

February 5, 1979
Oral Questions


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the President of the Treasury Board. On Friday, the President of the Treasury Board said they were currently in negotiation with this group, referring to the civil aviation inspectors. Today, the hon. Minister of Transport said that the government is in negotiation with this group. In fact, no negotiations are going on.
Is the Treasury Board piepared to make another offer to the civil aviation inspectors which will place them in a position of comparability, if not with the private sector then at least with those public employees with whom there ought to be comparability?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is aware, the government has made an offer to the aircraft operations group, which it rejected. The last meeting was held January 30, 1979. We have asked them to substantiate the demands which they are making upon the government, as employer, but they have not responded. We have indicated that we are ready and willing to resume negotiations at any time, and it seems to me that the onus is now upon the union to respond to that invitation.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, in view of the stated policy of the Minister of Labour that public servants ought to be paid on comparability basis, how can the President of the Treasury Board now stand and say that in the absence of any offer which gets close to comparability, whether with the private sector or the public sector, the onus lies upon the civil aviation inspectors to come up with a solution to the problem.
When will this paralysis, which apparently has taken a grip on three ministers of the Crown, end and when will we get back to a reasonable basis of negotiaton with the civil aviation inspectors upon whom the safety of civil aviation in Canada depends?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member speaks of a paralysis. I suggest that he is leaving a very misleading impression with this House. During the three-year period of this union and its predecessor-which has been changed because it lost its certification-the government, as the employer, voluntarily gave to this group increases in excess of 38 per cent which were the maximum increases that could be granted under AIB guidelines.
There has been some dispute on AIB rulings. The case has been carried through to the administrator. In fact, today there is an appeal before the Federal Court asking for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada to deal with the ruling of the administrator.
To suggest that there is a paralysis situation is nonsense. Things are moving and we are asking the union to substantiate
the demands which they have made. We have made our offer and they have rejected it.
The hon. member has raised the question of total compensation.


John Allen Fraser: Comparability.


J. Judd Buchanan: There is a great deal of room for discussion on the question of comparability with this union as to the elements, the value they put on them, and so on. These are things which should be discussed.
In finishing, I would come back to the suggestion which 1 made last week, that I really do not think we should be endeavouring to carry on these negotiations across the floor of this House. The negotiations should be carried on between the employer and the employees.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, my question remains. Apparently it is being avoided by the Minister of Transport, and now the President of the Treasury Board, as in the past it has been avoided by the Minister of Labour. My question is: why will the government not make an offer to this union on the basis of comparability? They can work it out any way they want, but will they make a comparability offer?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, that is right on: what exactly is the comparability? We are having discussions in negotiations as to what are the elements, what value they put upon them, and so on. Those are matters which should be discussed at the negotiating table. I concur wholeheartedly with the hon. member that that is precisely what should be happening. However, it should be done at the negotiating table, not here in the House of Commons.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council. As a result of the sharp increases in beef prices at the stockyard level last week, several of the major chains have announced that there will be an immediate increase in the price of beef this week of ten cents a pound.
Given the fact that medium-grade hamburger is already hovering around $2 a pound, and given the fact that the last time there was a substantial drop in beef prices it took three weeks for it to filter through the system, what steps has the government taken to ensure that there will be no profiteering at the expense of both the beef producers and the consumers?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that question in my exchange with the Leader of the New Democratic Party.

February 5, 1979


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister did not answer that part of my question, but perhaps he has not been sufficiently briefed.
The Acting Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, to whom I have already given notice, may be able to enlighten us further. What steps is the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs taking to ensure that profiteering is not taking place as a result of these sharp increases in the price of beef at the stockyard level and to ensure that prices will be allowed to work their way in an orderly manner through the system, which would take anywhere from two to three weeks? In other words, are they ensuring that no profiteering will take place?
I do not know why the acting minister looks so alarmed: his office was warned about it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the question asked by the hon. member dealing with profiteering, I am sure he would agree that the first step is to ascertain whether, in fact, excess profits are being made by the increased price of beef. Is the hon. member alleging, as his question would appear to allege, that in this particular case the beef producers of Canada are profiteering at the expense of the consumers?

[ Translation]


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Gaston Clermont (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether she is in a position to tell the House whether mothers who are now on welfare and who will be eligible for the refundable child tax credit will receive the same percentage increase in welfare benefits from the government of Quebec as other people who are on welfare?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: No, Mr. Speaker, and I think this situation is most serious and unfortunate. We were informed of this by those on welfare themselves because I did not receive an answer to the telegrams nor to the letter I sent to the province of Quebec. In fact, Quebec is one of the three provinces which have a statutory increase in welfare benefits. This province will give the full amount of the increase, half of it being paid by the federal, namely 9 per cent, to all those on welfare but, in order to recover the child tax credit, it will give only a 4.5 per cent increase to mothers with children.
Oral Questions


SOCIAL SERVICES
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare?
In view of the fact that the grant from her department to the National Assistor of Canadian Rape Crisis Centres will come to an end on March 31, and in view of the fact that the national co-ordinating work is done by the network headed by the assistor in terms of liaison between rape crisis centres on the one hand and police, social agencies and hospitals on the other, will the government give favourable consideration to the continuation of that grant beyond March 31?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, the welfare demonstration projects of my department are three-year projects. We fund them for three years only because the direct delivery of services must be assumed by the provinces. We are not in that business: the group knew that.
I have received a letter dated February 1 in which an extension is requested but a new submission seems to have been made to the department. I will not interfere with the usual review system, and I will follow the dossier personally to see if within the usual criteria we can help for an additional year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that the government's social services act is being dropped-and I am not complaining about that, for certain reasons well known to the minister-it changes the picture in terms of what the provinces might have been asked to do under that legislation.
In view of the fact that the work of some 30 or more rape crisis centres across Canada will suffer unless funds are available, bearing in mind that this is not only a health matter but that rape comes under the Criminal Code, will the minister do her best to see that the assistance available from her department will continue not only to the assistor but to rape crisis centres across Canada?


Monique Bégin: I shall take that into consideration, Mr. Speaker. Because we were going into a new regime of block-funding, I am not yet familiar enough with what the Canada Assistance Plan can or cannot fund on a 50-50 basis. I cannot say if centres like these could be considered.
As to the more general philosophy that we should make up for the loss of the social services bill, I shall consider favourably everything we can do to help.

February 5, 1979
Oral Questions HOUSE OF COMMONS


RIGHT OF MEMBERS NOT TO DISCLOSE SOURCES OF INFORMATION-EFFICACY OF S O. 43 PROCEDURE
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, when Standing Order 43 was being discussed the government took the stand that it was a means whereby parliament would have an opportunity to make a decision.
Today, I made a very bad mistake. I regard the Deputy Prime Minister-or I have up to this moment-as a fine parliamentarian. I have had to amend that after my experience today. I sent him a copy of the motion I intended to move. Normally, there is a "No" group over there whose one source of expected preferment is to be able to say "I said no several times to motions under Standing Order 43." I imagine today that the only one who took that stand was that parliamentarian, the Deputy Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: The rest of you were silent.


Mr. Dawson:: I said "No" with pleasure.


John George Diefenbaker: Stupidity needs no identification.


Dennis Dawson: Is that respect for parliament?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will have to ask the right hon. member to put his question.


John George Diefenbaker: I always like to answer interrupters, even though it is with great diffidence. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, why did he take that stand today? What is the reason? Standing Order 43 has become a farce because of the attitude of the government. That is the reason I passed on to him early this afternoon the motion I intended to move.
I ask him, why did he take that stand today? I should like to know, because he must have been a student of philosophical innocuity to produce that "No" on his part.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to work hard to be restored to the good opinion of the right hon. member in giving this answer.
I do agree that the question he raised is an important one. I did read the editorial in the Globe and Mail this morning-


John George Diefenbaker: It shows you keep up to date.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and also the long preamble to his motion and the motion itself. I thought it was a matter of such importance that it should require a little more consideration than we had time to give it when it was read to the House. I had advance notice, but other hon. members did not have the same notice. I do not think the question ought to be dealt with that quickly.
Further than that, I wanted to discuss the legal implications of the motion with the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor
General: what effect it might have upon, for example, security information. Not having been able to conduct these investigations, I thought it would be wiser not to deny the validity of the intent of the motion. That did not occur. All that did occur was a refusal to give the right hon. member an opportunity to put the motion. I could not give that because of the importance of the motion itself.


John George Diefenbaker: I never heard a more impressive collection of nonsense, Mr. Speaker, than we have now witnessed on the part of the hon. gentleman. In view of the warmheartedness that he expressed for the principle and the necessity of having further time for the giants in the cabinet to examine its implications, I give notice now that on Thursday or Friday, whichever date is more suitable and gives them the longest possible time, I will move it again, because I find it can be done.
I am very glad we are going to have the support of the minister, provided the other ministers do not show him the serious implications inherent in accepting something that, unless it is accepted, will deny parliament information. Every member here has letters from individuals saying, "Do not identify me or I will be destroyed." That is what I am trying to prevent.


CANADA'S ABILITY TO COPE WITH PETROLEUM SHORTAGE IN EVENT IRAN REDUCES OIL PRODUCTION
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources with respect to the continuing crisis in Iran, and particularly the question of petroleum supplies from that country.
The United States is now actively considering the prospect of rationing petroleum products. Just this weekend, certain Iranian spokesmen were suggesting a permanent cutback of 40 per cent in production. Is Canada prepared to cope with a possible North American shortage of petroleum, either in co-operation with the United States or otherwise, and to what countries may we look for new sources of supply should that become necessary?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, the situation is serious. It is by no means a panic situation at the present time, but it is serious. We may well be facing reductions in supply in the coming months.
At the present time, the situation is still manageable. We are making every effort to ensure that there will be supplies for Canadian refineries in eastern Canada. We are looking to other sources of supply, particularly Mexico, to replace the Iranian production, and to Venezuela. Venezuela, of course, is under pressure from other countries. Venezuela has been our major supplier, supplying some 40 per cent of our imports. I

February 5, 1979

have received personal assurances from Venezuela that those supplies will continue to Canada. We are also working in Venezuela, trying to work out new opportunities with regard to heavy oils. That program is well under way between Petro-Canada and Petroleos de Venezuela.
As far as Mexico is concerned, again Petro-Canada will be the major player on behalf of Canada, working with the Mexican national oil company which handles all exports of oil from Mexico-Pemex. I believe these measures will help to assure Canadians of a continuing source of supply and reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern crude.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Solicitor General. I asked questions concerning the Boeing bribes in Canada on October 16, October 19, November 20 and November 21. The answers have run the gamut from "Wait", to "Be patient a little longer", and back to "Wait".
Can the minister tell the House if any progress has been made, and when we may expect charges to be laid? After all, from an even start India laid charges several months ago.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise the hon. member and, as well, I wish to state how pleased I am that he has pursued this matter over a period of time. I wish to advise him that the investigation has been completed. The judgment is that there are no grounds on which to lay charges at the present time.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: This question goes back to the "sweetheart" treaty signed between Canada and the United States promising not to rat on each other if either government got in trouble over it. Is the minister now telling us that none is guilty of taking a bribe in Canada, a fact that was clearly stated in the SEC findings in the United States?


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, the advice that I received was from the law enforcement agencies. They have completed their investigation. They found, upon investigation, that there are no charges to be laid.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: In the
absence of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister.
As the legislation now stands, widows of veterans receiving less than 48 per cent disability pensions are left without a
Oral Questions
pension. Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell me when he plans to bring in legislation to establish prorata pensions for these women, thereby implementing the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the provision of the Pensions Act upon which the hon. member bases his question. However, 1 have not had a chance to talk with the Minister of Veterans Affairs about this. I will draw the question to his attention. I am sure he will give it his usual sympathetic consideration.


A. Daniel McKenzie: The recommendations of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs were completed and forwarded to the government many months ago. Is the Deputy Prime Minister stating that none of these recommendations has been studied in cabinet? Can he give us some kind of commitment? Will he promise that he will bring forward legislation dealing with the recommendations in whole or in part before an election is called?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot guarantee that legislation will be brought forward during the present session. In the normal course, the minister involved makes a recommendation to cabinet on these matters. Until that recommendation is made, such reports are not normally studied by cabinet.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that posed by the hon. member for Victoria.
The Solicitor General said that no charges will be laid in the Boeing matter. Boeing has reported to the SEC in the United States that some payments were made. Will the Solicitor General advise whether the investigation found that any Canadian law had been broken?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, the information I have is that upon the investigation being completed there was no evidence of any wrongdoing that would lead to any charges. There was no evidence of any breach of the law by anyone involved in the dealings with the Government of Canada.


Charles Joseph Clark: Can the Solicitor General tell us whether his investigations confirmed that payments were made by Boeing, as Boeing reported to the SEC in the United States? If they were made, can he tell us for what purpose they were made?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I have no indication that any improper payments were made, or of any payments that could

February 5, 1979
Oral Questions
have been made which would have been in breach of any law of Canada.


FISHERIES
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment arising out of representations made to me by some inshore fishermen in Nova Scotia and about which I wrote to the minister.
Can he assure me that there is real competition between fish buyers in Nova Scotia, and that no parties in the industry are artificially depressing the price paid to inshore fishermen for groundfish and lobster?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know to what extent I can give that assurance, except to say that I am concerned about the degree of concentration in Nova Scotia, particularly in areas where fishermen have very few alternative counters at which to sell their fish. This is one reason why I have been actively promoting fishermen becoming organized.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I appreciate the minister's answer. Would he consider consulting the Minister of Employment and Immigration with regard to encouraging inshore fishermen to market their own catches, and perhaps facilitating changes in the unemployment insurance regulations to encourage this?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I had not heard that this was an issue. We have co-operatives where fishermen do their own marketing through their organizations. If a regulation prohibits fishermen from protecting their own interests, I am sure my colleague and I can find some arrangement.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In December, 1977, a jet crashed at Churchill Falls, resulting in the loss of eight people, two of whom died of exposure because the aircraft was not discovered for 48 hours, despite the fact it was only a mile from the runway. There was no emergency locator transmitter aboard, because DOT had ordered them removed.
Can the minister advise whether the Deprtment of Transport has ordered all Canadian and civil aircraft to again start using emergency locator transmitters, or what is the situation in that regard?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the situation is now one of some ability on the part of aircraft to use transmitters, particularly if they are of the type that is safe.
The hon. member knows the reason for discontinuing their use. It was the discovery that the lithium batteries in the transmitters were, in fact, themselves a source of danger and could have been the cause of accidents. In order to avoid that happening, they were removed. Work has been done on finding batteries that are satisfactory. There has been some progress, although not yet enough to ensure that there will be an ELT on every aircraft.


John Carnell Crosbie: As the minister probably knows, there has been a magisterial inquiry under way in Newfoundland into the deaths from that crash. Captain Powick of the Search and Rescue centre at Halifax stated at that time that he knows of no dangerous incident involving military aircraft, and that it is costing the taxpayer millions of dollars to search for aircraft that do not have ELTs on board. He said he could see no reason not to have ELTs aboard aircraft, that sufficient time has elapsed to find a suitable replacement for the lithium battery.
What is the minister's department doing? A year has gone by, and anybody who travels on an aircraft today has his life in jeopardy, if he survives a crash, because there are no ELTs on these aircraft. When will the minister show a sense of urgency about the installation of ELTs? They have them in the United States without lithium batteries. When does the minister propose to act?


Otto Emil Lang: The hon. member says they have them in the United States without lithium batteries. The problem in Canada which made special batteries necessary is the extremely cold weather which is much more common in this part of the world than it is farther south. Perhaps the hon. member does not know that. In Canada, these batteries must be able to work under a variety of conditions, including temperatures well below zero. It is this which led to the search for new batteries to replace the lithium batteries. Obviously, technological development can be forced only so far, but some batteries of an improved kind are now being made and some are available. However, we are not yet at a point at which we can require that every aircraft instals them.
The hon. member told us someone had said he knew of no incidents. Well, our department does know of some incidents and they have been quoted in answers given in this House: lithium-powered batteries have actually exploded in aircraft, becoming such a clear danger that they had to be removed. No amount of protestation on the part of the hon. member will alter that fact.
February 5, 1979


SOCIAL SERVICES
Mr. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In light of the decision to withdraw Bill C-55, the social services financing act, has the minister any plans to mobilize or offer support to the voluntary agencies in the provision of home services to senior citizens along the lines of her speech of October 14-A New Deal for the Aged.


Monique Bégin: The hon. member who now seems to be interested in the development of social policy should have followed this situation when it developed and talked to his own provincial minister of finance in Ontario, one of the leading provincial finance ministers, who helped kill Bill C-55.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, my concern was not the apportionment of blame. Specifically, a number of people are concerned about the three programs which the minister mentioned in her speech-meals on wheels, health visitors, and home helpers. Has she any plan to obtain support from voluntary agencies with respect to those programs?


Monique Bégin: I do not understand exactly where the hon. member wants to go, but if he wants to make a representation to the minister of social services in Ontario, asking him to back projects for the community in Toronto or elsewhere, I shall be pleased to ensure that at this end we shall pay the 50 per cent which is the federal share.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POINTS OF ORDER
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order having to do with a question I put to the Deputy Prime Minister today following a question which had been raised by the Leader of the New Democratic Party. It had to do with the question of profiteering. The Deputy Prime Minister took the opportunity to twist my question around; uncharacteristically he imputed motives to me by accusing me of saying I was accusing the beef producers of profiteering.
The whole thrust of my question had to do with the sharp increase of stockyard prices for beef last week and the report in the weekend press by two of the leading supermarkets that beef prices would rise by 10 cents a pound as of Monday. We are told it takes anywhere from two to three weeks for beef prices to work their way through the system, as was the case last June when beef prices went down; it took three weeks for the decrease to reach consumers. My question was: What steps is the government taking to ensure that no profiteering is
Point of Order-Mr. Mazankowski
taking place at the expense of either producers or consumers? We have set up a centre for the study of productivity. I had hoped the Deputy Prime Minister would refer my question to that body. The acting minister, who appeared to be in a state of shock when I directed my question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is aware, I am sure, that he has been airing a grievance about the answer given to his question and the treatment his question received during the question period. He has not come close to establishing any disorder; he has not advanced any procedural argument. If he has a point of order he has yet to persuade me that this is the case. Otherwise, I would be bound to permit everybody who did not like the answers they got during the question period to make similar use of this time.


James Aloysius McGrath: I believe I do have a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and I raise it with great respect. You, sir, in your conduct of the question period, impose severe restrictions on hon. members asking questions, and rightly so. My point is that the same restrictions should be imposed on ministers when they reply. Otherwise, what happens? We had the example today of the Deputy Prime Minister making a cheap shot, knowing full well that somebody else would be recognized.
I did not state or impute in any way that profiteering was going on by beef producers. I was asking the minister to assure us that the government was taking steps to make certain that there was no profiteering taking place in the marketplace as a result of what happened last week to stockyard prices for beef. Surely there is a question of disorder involved here because the Deputy Prime Minister imputed motives to my question though there was no such suggestion in the question I asked. If Your Honour would take the time to examine the record I believe you would find that my point of order is valid.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member that I did not intend to impute motives. I believe I concluded my statement by asking him a question. The question was whether he was alleging that the beef producers were profiteering. The hon. member has stated that he was not making any such allegation. Because, in my appreciation of the situation, the only marketplace in which any profiteering could have taken place up to the present time would have been the sales at Toronto, that is why I asked the question. Further, I thought I had assured the hon. member that the government would be monitoring the situation and that if profiteering is established it would consider what steps should be taken.


MR. MAZANKOWSKI-STATEMENT OF MINISTER OF TRANSPORT
Donald Frank Mazankowski: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. In response to a question I directed to him the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang)-and I am sorry he has left the chamber-suggested that I was irresponsible and that I was distorting some of his previous statements. The issue revolves around a statement he made in the House on December 5, 1977, having to do with the hiring of additional inspectors and the interpretation to be placed thereon.

February 5, 1979
Trade Practices Commission
I realize the minister suffers from memory lapses from time to time but because a charge has been levelled against me I think I should attempt to set the record straight at the earliest opportunity. In response to my question the minister suggested that he undertook only to provide additional air navigation inspectors for the northern Ontario region. That undertaking may well have been met; as I understand it, it was met by the transfer of inspectors from other regions. But the quotation which I believe puts the commitment in its proper perspective is to be found at page 1534 of Hansard of December 5, 1977. The minister stated as follows:
I have instructed that additional inspectors be hired and a significant number of them made available to the north.
Today the minister suggested he had given an undertaking to provide more inspectors only to the northern Ontario region. I read his commitment as being one to hire additional inspectors. The fact is there are fewer inspectors today than there were on December 5, 1977. I know the minister is very touchy and sensitive on this important matter. It is obvious there is a memory lapse on his part and that he does not have a full grasp of the situation; otherwise he would have answered my question properly.


Mr. Speaker:: I will leave that matter in abeyance and see whether the minister has any response to make. I take it the point of order the hon. member is raising has to do with some answer the minister gave having to do with some suggested attempt by the hon. member to distort the minister's position, which the hon. members now disputes. We will first determine whether there is any response from the minister on that point.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport is attending the federal-provincial conference on the constitution. I am sure that when he returns to the House he will clear up these unfounded allegations made by the hon. member.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Len Marchand (Minister of State (Environment)):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand) I wish to table under Standing Order 41(2), in both official languages, the report of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission entitled, "The Ophthalmic Products Industry in Canada".


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Roger Young (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 587, 593, 648, 743, 842, 855, 890 and 900.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Whiteway: 1.	What was the total cost to the government of producing the brochure (a) The Seal Hunt (b) The Seal Hunt: Questions and Answers and, in each case, how many copies were (i) printed (ii) distributed?
2.	Were any protests received by the (a) Prime Minister's office (b) Department of Fisheries and of the Environment (c) Department of External Affairs through Canadian Embassies and Consulates, protesting seal hunts and, if so, in each case (i) how many (ii) from which Embassies and Consulates?


Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: I am informed by Fisheries and Oceans, the Department of External Affairs and the Prime Minister and Privy Council's Office as follows:
(a)	Cost	No. Printed	No. DistributedThe Seal Hunt	$71,717.62	230,000 (190,000 English 40,000 French)	230,000(b) The Seal Hunt: Questions and answers	$10,890.81	185,000 (150,000 English and 35,000 French)	127,000
2. (a) None.
(b)	Approximately 8,250 letters of protest were received between April 1, 1977 and November 17, 1978.
(c)	Yes.
(i)	No accurate count of the number of persons involved in these protests has been kept.
(ii)	Nearly all Canadian diplomatic and consular missions in Western Europe, the United States, Australia and New Zealand reported protests.


Mr. Holmes: How many Indian people on reserves were receiving welfare on March 31 (a) 1971 (b) 1978?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: (a) 72,924 (This figure is incomplete
February 5, 1979

as two regions no longer have records available for the year 1971) (b) 98,094.


Mr. McKinnon: Did Chancellor Schmidt personally or some of the other bidders ask for a few more months beyond the August 1 deadline to improve their bids on the NFA contract and, if so, which companies submitted additional proposals after August 1?


Yvon Pinard: I am
informed by the Departments of External Affairs and National Defence as follows: No.


Mr. Howie: On December 31, 1977, were small industries located in the portion of the Fredericton Industrial Park situated in Sunbury County, eligible for assistance under the Small Industries Financial Assistance Programme financed by DREE and, if so, does such eligibility still prevail and is any change advocated by DREE?


Mr. Donald Wood (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The reply of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: No industries were located in the portion of the Fredericton Industrial Park located in Sunbury County at December 31, 1977. Sunbury County is one of nine counties in New Brunswick eligible under the Small Industries Financial Assistance Program. Revised boundaries for eligible areas are under consideration by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the province of New Brunswick.


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Since 1968, did the Department of Fisheries and the Environment Finance projects in the Constituency of Richmond and, if so (a) what were the projects (b) what was the (i) total amount (ii) amount in each case (c) what were the areas?
2.	Is the Department planning to do so in the near future and, if so (a) what will be the amount (b) in which areas?


Mr. Jack Pearsall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: In so far as Fisheries and Oceans is concerned: 1. No.
2. No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-PROJECTS IN RICHMOND
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Since 1968, did the Department of External Affairs Finance projects in the Constituency of Richmond and, if so (a) what were the projects (b) what was the (i) total amount (ii) amount in each case (c) what were the areas?
2.	Is the Department planning to do so in the near future and, if so (a) what will be the amount (b) in which areas?


Mr. Louis Duclos (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Pursuant to its program man-
Point of Order-Mr. Cossitt
date, which relates to foreign operations, the Department of External Affairs does not normally finance domestic projects. Also, departmental expenditure records are not maintained by region, municipality or constituency. Therefore, statistical data on expenditures by constituency is not available.
2. No.


DREE-OFFICES AND EMPLOYEES IN NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. Howie: On December 1, 1978, how many (a) offices (b) employees did DREE have in New Brunswick?


Donald Paul Wood: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: (a) Three, (b) 162.


DREE OFFICE-FREDERICTON, N.B.
Mr. Howie: 1.	For the Fiscal year 1977-78, how many applications for assistance were received by the local DREE OfFice in Fredericton, New Brunswick?
2.	How many were (a) approved (b) rejected (c) undecided?


Donald Paul Wood: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: Under the Regional Development Incentives Act: 1. Ninety-one.
2. (a) Forty-nine, (b) Six. (c) Nil. (Thirty-six applications were withdrawn by the applicants).


POINT OF ORDER
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in regard to the great number of questions which have been on the order paper for a lengthy period of time not only in this session but also in other sessions. This is the only recourse a member of this House has to draw questions to the attention of the House, and I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) or his parliamentary secretary will take action in this regard.
I would like today to draw attention to four specific questions which are on the order paper in my name. I refer first to one which was placed there two years and eight months ago. It is a very simple question. It asks simply how many members of the Canadian Transport Commission and their wives have Air Canada passes. I do not see why it should take two years and eight months to compile an answer to such a simple question. The question to which I refer is question No. 4.
Question No. 5 concerns the office of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Three years ago I asked for a breakdown of the $86,703 of public funds which had been spent on the office

February 5, 1979
Point of Order-Mr. Cossitt
of the Prime Minister. I raised this matter on a point of order one year ago. At that time two years had gone by and the question was not answered. The Prime Minister replied to this effect: "Let it be made public; put it in all the papers, I don't mind". After three years the answer is still not forthcoming.
The third question to which I would like to refer is question No. 9 dealing with the fingerprinting of public servants. The question asks how many have been fingerprinted. I know that the number would be very large. The question also asks why this invasion of privacy is taking place with regard even to those who are not engaged in jobs of a security nature. In such jobs such a procedure might be understandable, but that question has been on the order paper for two years, and it remains unanswered.
Finally, question No. 10 has been on the order paper one year and seven months. It deals with Martin Goldfarb and Goldfard Consultants of Toronto. The question deals with what contacts they have had with the government or with any government department regarding government business. I am not asking about the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars they may have received from the Liberal party, just from the government. That question has been unanswered for one year and seven months.
There are other questions, and I think I have the right as a member of this House to rise each day I am here and draw attention to two or three questions which have not been answered. Today I have drawn attention to four.
The parliamentary secretary might rise in the tradition of his predecessors and point to the great percentages and tremendous work which has been done in answering questions, but I do not care whether 87 per cent, 88 per cent, 89 per cent or 90 per cent of questions have been answered. If hon. members opposite are avoiding questions which would embarrass the government on the eve of an election, I think it is high time the people of Canada realized the sham which is being perpetrated by this government.
Will the parliamentary secretary rise now and tell me when these four specific questions will be answered? After three years I think I have a right to know.


Roger Carl Young: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member I think I am technically correct in saying that these questions have been on this particular order paper since October 11 of last year. Whether they have been on other order papers of other sessions is a very different question. We are attempting to answer questions which have been put on the order paper in this session. The ones mentioned by the hon. member are dated October 11, and I see other more recent ones dated in November and December. If the hon. member wishes to convey to me or through me to my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) which of those four or five questions out of the few dozen which he has on the order paper he would like responded to most quickly, I will be happy to take that as notice.

I only wish that when the hon. member brings forward these questions he might also take into consideration the fact that a question such as question No. 9 involves checking with dozens of different government departments and agencies. It would involve going through almost every file to check on how many of the some 300,000 civil servants have been fingerprinted. That is an unbelievable task, and the hon. member knows that.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, February 2, consideration of the motion of Miss Begin that Bill C-2, to amend the Health Resources Fund Act, be read the third time and do pass.
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, when the debate adjourned on Friday I was dealing with the impact which the cutback in the health resources fund would have on the Rehabilitation International Congress which is scheduled to be held in Winnipeg during June of 1980. I complimented the minister for her attempts to deal with a very difficult situation in the face of the cutbacks which suddenly appeared following the television address of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on August 1.
The minister actually has a double problem because she is carrying the torch for promises which were made by her predecessor, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde), who for a period of some five or six years when he had the responsibilities of minister of national health and welfare raised the level of expectation to unprecedented heights. Let me quote from a speech the hon. gentleman made on May 30 of 1973 in which he said that under the new social services legislation rehabilitation was to be given top priority to promote the principle of self-reliance among the handicapped. He said that governments and voluntary groups for too long had introduced programs which promoted dependence rather than independence. The minister stated, and I quote:
The handicapped have the right to be as independent as possible, the right to live like everyone in the community and the services they need to bring this about should be provided.
This refers to a question which the hon. member for Rose-dale was asking just a moment ago with respect to the cutback in home care services for the disabled. Then later on in his speech the former health minister spoke about a conference which was held by the disabled themselves.lt was one of the first conferences at which the disabled were provided the opportunity to speak for themselves and to express their wishes. The conference was funded by the federal government
February 5, 1979

and sponsored by the Canadian Rehabilitation Council for the Disabled. Here is the message that came out of this conference:
In every area the message was clear: They "wanted in": into employment, into community living, into maximum participation in community life, into the planning of systems and services designed to help them. At the same time they "wanted out": out of institutions, out of dead-end sheltered workshops, out of welfare, out of being pitied, out of being thrust on to the sidelines with a pension and a shrug.
This is a quotation from a speech which was delivered by the former minister of national health and welfare back in 1973.
One of the main problems with which the minister is wrestling as she faces a cutback in this important area is the necessity of providing adequate personnel resources. In a document which was tabled as Appendix "B" last November 27, at page 1555 of Hansard, we have some very revealing facts with respect to the inability of Canada to provide trained personnel resources to deal with the growing problems of rehabilitating the physically and mentally handicapped, and this is one of the most expensive areas of concern in the whole health and welfare fields.
Looking at the document which was tabled by the minister and printed as an appendix to Hansard, we find that it states that the number of biomedical engineers who had graduated in 1966 was 14; in 1976, some ten years later, that number had only increased to 39. The demand, of course, is far beyond that number. But what is even more revealing is the fact that occupational therapists who play a large role in the rehabilitation process numbered 78 in 1966, and in 1976 there were only 237 of them. I compare this with 3,800 nursing assistants in 1966 and 5,500 nursing assistants in 1976. You can see that the level is quite low by comparison, Mr. Speaker.
Physiotherapists, who are right on the Firing line in rehabilitation, numbered 232 in 1966 and 446 in 1976, as compared to 880 physicians in 1966 and 1,700 in 1976. So the time of fully trained medical doctors has been taken up in areas which could be delegated to paramedics such as physiotherapists.
There are no figures available for the training of doctors in physical medicine or physiatrists, so I presume they are not being trained anywhere in Canada, and of course an ordinary MD has great difficulty in coping with the particular demands of rehabilitation.
I had an interesting exchange of correspondence recently in company with the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) regarding the case of a young chap who is not a Canadian and had come from another country. He was taking his doctorate at the Chedoke Rehabilitation Centre at McMaster university in a very highly specialized field in the rehabilitation movement. He was being trained in the field of biomedical engineering with a special focus on studying human locomotor function and applying external electrical stimuli to activate paralysed muscles. This work is quite unique in Canada, in the world as a matter of fact, and actually this particular specialist is one of his kind in the world. So hon. members will see that we have a long way to go
Health Resources Fund Act
in training personnel in the rehabilitation field. It became necessary to approach the Department of Employment and Immigration, and this gentleman will be allowed to stay in Canada following his graduation and to serve in this way. But he is only one and we need hundreds of similarly trained personnel. Of course, there will be a setback in this area as a result of the cutback in the resource funding.
Another thought I have in this area is that the whole Field of geriatrics will be affected, the special care that is required for our senior citizens. They are a rapidly increasing percentage of the population; 15 per cent of Canadians will be in the geriatric age group by the end of the present century, and obviously with the slow progress we are making, we will not be prepared to meet the special health and welfare requirements of a senior citizen population. They are affected by all sorts of crippling diseases and disabling afflictions, and when you do not have personnel specially trained to deal with these problems, they constitute a crippling demand on health and welfare resources.
This is where one of our problems lies-the escalating cost of providing these services and meeting these needs at present. Insitutional care is not the answer, but this has been the answer we have unconsciously given in meeting this problem. Some of these institutions are referred to as human warehouses. What we want are the facilities, the home care, meals on wheels and attention in the home that will make it possible for the disabled person, the handicapped person and the older citizen to have the beneFit and the warmth of a home environment rather than eke out an existence in these cold human warehouses. We want to be able to add life to the years of Canada's disabled.
Let me conclude my remarks by saying that the whole emphasis of the Rehabilitation International Congress in Winnipeg in June, 1980 will be precisely on the points I have raised. The theme of the congress will be prevention and integration, the priorities for the 1980s. These are the areas where Canada is falling down because of the misplacement of our financial priorities. We could prevent a lot of crippling and disabling diseases if only we aimed our emphasis, our priorities, in the right direction.
There will be six preliminary seminars at the congress which will deal with major areas of concern. The seminar on special education will take place in Vancouver. The medical seminar will be in Kingston, the social needs seminar in Winnipeg and the organizational need seminar will also be in Winnipeg. In Toronto there will be a technical aid seminar which will be joined by the inter-agency from the United States and will bring together some 1,500 people to deal with the biomedical aspects of the rehabilitation movement. Toronto will also have a seminar on the vocational needs of Canada's disabled population.
Canada was fortunate to get the congress. I was privileged to be with the invitation committee which travelled to Tel Aviv in Israel in June of 1976 where we attended the Rehabilitation International Congress. There was pretty stiff competition, but the reason Canada was awarded the 1980 congress was that

February 5, 1979
Health Resources Fund Act
we could guarantee there would be a great breakthrough in social services for the handicapped.
I read some of the speeches of the hon. member for Out-remont concerning all the wonders which were just around the corner. As a result of that presentation Canada was selected, but unfortunately all we have at present is great hope and expectations. We can get it all together. As I said the other day, the minister has written to me indicating the problem in this regard and her support for the motion which I put before the House namely that we constitute a special subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs to gather pertinent information from the voluntary organizations and have a report ready for the congress in 1980.
In December, 1977 I was privileged to go to New York and speak on behalf of Canada in support of the motion declaring 1981 as rehabilitation year. That motion was accepted unanimously, so that rehabilitation international year will flow out of the 1980 congress in Canada. The role of Canada is very large in all these areas, and of course the reputation of Canada is at stake. We must have something very concrete, not only in terms of hope and expectation, but also in terms of legislative proposals. Britain is ahead of us. It has had special legislation since 1971, and now has a minister of state for rehabilitation. We have a long way to go even to match that kind of progress.
I recognize the problems which the minister has as she struggles valiantly to meet the problems created by the sudden reversal of the Prime Minister in funding respecting health and welfare measures, and I should like to make some specific proposals. I hope we will get the subcommittee together as soon as possible in order to gather public sentiment and opinion in preparation for the time when it will be possible to proceed with the legislation. I trust the minister will be able to reconstitute the rehabilitation unit which existed at one time in the Department of National Health and Welfare. It was disbanded because we were moving toward the dawn of the new age respecting rehabilitation matters, as was promised by the hon. member for Outremont in his speeches a few years ago. We were to do away with some of the existing legislation and co-ordinate it under the new social services act.
There are excellent personnel in the Department of National Health and Welfare. I have met them at various conferences. They are competent in the field of rehabilitation. In a letter written on December 5, the minister indicated that it was her intention to reconstitute the rehabilitation unit. I hope people such as Andre LeBlanc, who has had broad experience in this field and has left it temporarily because of the disintegration of the rehabilitation unit within the department, will be called back into service, particularly in preparation for the 1980 congress to be held in Winnipeg. Also I trust it will be possible to have an advisory committee composed of representatives from the privte sector who are providing leadership in this field at the moment. They are ahead of the government in meeting the various needs. I hope an advisory committee will come out of the committee investigating the state of rehabilitation arts
in Canada as it moves across the country to hear representations from these people. It could advise the government on how to cut down the huge expenses and waste involved in meeting the needs of our handicapped population because of the lack of co-ordinated policies.
I hope the government will provide a resource centre upon which professionals in the field can call to obtain databank information on all available technical aids. The information centre could co-ordinate all activities and avoid costly duplication to taxpayers as various groups attempt to meet the very difficult problems of rehabilitation. I hope the health resources fund will be built up to such an extent that it will be possible to provide personnel. As I indicated a moment ago, the personnel training program is totally inadequate to provide the needed expertise. We require a sense of direction, rather than an ad hoc approach to fundamental health and welfare programs which are on again and off again, stop and start. Such programs only confuse and add to the waste in meeting needs.
We require a stable long-term program which will last at least three to five years. This is why I say the present program is quite inadequate. It is not good enough for the government to keep changing direction, to raise the hopes and expectations of the people who have held out for the past seven years awaiting a new social services legislation which would meet their needs adequately. This has not been done and this is why we criticize the program at the present time.


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the contributions over the last few days respecting the legislation before the House. I believe this particular matter is one of the most important to occupy our attention. When we consider all the assets of life, health is one of the most important.
I should like to deal with the proposal of the government to eliminate the health resources fund. This has caused a great deal of dismay, not only in the Canadian medical community but in the respective provinces and among the public at large.
As this debate continues, there is a tendency to forget the details and the background information on the Health Resources Fund Act. The Health Resources Fund Act was established under the Pearson administration and given Royal Assent on July 11, 1966. At that time the government perceived a need for funding certain types of research in the medical field, teaching, medical and laboratory equipment, and research facilities in Canadian universities and hospitals. The fund was set up and $500 million was allocated and disbursed over a 15-year period as follows: $300 million to the provinces on a per capita basis; $25 million to the Atlantic provinces for joint projects; $175 million to be allocated by the governor in council for particular projects. Approximately $400 million has been spent. About one-fifth of the fund went to medical schools and major purpose buildings in the health science complex. Another one-fifth went to university hospitals. Some money went to affiliated hospitals. Approximately $23 million was contributed to dental schools with $76 million to nursing schools, auxiliary schools and other health and manpower training centres.

February 5, 1979_____________________________COMMONS
To my mind and to the minds of a great many Canadians, this fund was worth while and the money was well spent. By cancelling the health resources fund the government has stated it will save $84 million over a period of 2 years. The minister agreed both at the second reading stage of this bill and at third reading that the fund had been worth while and had done a lot of good for the people of Canada. After devoting a major part of her speech on second reading to saying how great the fund was, she then announced it was to be cancelled. The logic of this leaves one baffled. This was pointed out by my colleague, the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk), at second reading stage when he stated that either the fund is good and deserves support or it is bad and deserves to be cancelled. We find a paradox in that the minister says it is good but it is to be cancelled.
I think one of the reasons that she has taken this position was set out in her speech a few days ago when she said the objectives of the program had been completed. In the course of the debate several of my colleagues have pointed out activities in various areas which have either been left unfinished or untouched in this Field of endeavour involving the delivery of health care.
As we listened to other speakers we came to the conclusion that possibly the minister was speaking without a full understanding of the facts or in some way had missed the point of some of the legislative programs. Without question there are areas which have been left untouched, and there are groups of people, segments of our population, that have not been the recipients of adequate health delivery care. For these reasons we feel it is highly inappropriate at this time that this particular program should be eliminated. I would suggest that of all the places to cut expenditures, this type of program should be one of the last.
During the debates throughout the past months we on this side of the House have advised the government that if it is really interested in making some meaningful cuts in expenditures and trimming the expensive fat from its operations, it should pay more attention to the recommendations, observations and comments made in the Auditor General's report. Unfortunately, instead of doing that the government is moving in other directions, eliminating or reducing programs which have a direct bearing upon the personal needs and lives of individuals. This is very unfortunate because in doing so the government is leaving certain people and groups without the essential services necessary if they are to maintain adequate health and serve our country in a productive fashion.
As we consider this particular measure today it is reasonable, and certainly understandable, that we should take so much time in calling attention to the injustices of this cancellation, pointing out ways in which other expenditures can be cut without bringing to an end programs which have been of such importance to the people and the country.
One well-known expert in the area of medical research, for instance, has made a study that clearly shows that, for every dollar invested in research today, $20 will be saved in
DEBATES	____________2883
Health Resources Fund Act
ten years' time through dramatically reduced health costs. The cutting of research projects in any field does not necessarily save money, but it does in many cases increase the cost to the taxpayer or the individual citizen in Canada.
My colleague the hon. member for Athabasca cited a number of examples of this fact when speaking during another stage of the debate. Let me just refer to one of his statements. He said that it cost $41 million to develop the polio vaccine. That was the total cost. Since polio vaccine has been in use in Canada, beginning in 1955, Canada has saved $200 million per year in medical and health care costs. This is just one piece of successful research that has saved this country more than four times the total expenditure for research in each year since 1955. How can this government in the name of restraint downgrade medical research in such a way?
Some of my colleagues have referred to areas where medical research has not been provided the people of Canada. Reference has been made to the action of the minister and the government in respect of medical care for native people. I noticed that in one instance it was reduced, the next time it was increased, and then it was reduced again. It seems illogical that in an important area, such as this there should be an on-again, off-again, here-again, gone-again, "Flannigan" attitude toward medical care for our native people.
Just yesterday I picked up a publication called "Circlet" put out by the Union of National Defence Employees. The main article on the front page under the heading "Keep health units, Power says", states in part:
The Union of National Defence Employees is in the forefront of efforts to fight a reduction of health services to federal public employees across the country.
As part of Ottawa's announced restraint program, the Department of National Health and Welfare has announced it is closing a number of health units and is cutting back on the number of man-years for some others. At some Department of National Defence bases, nurses will be available for only part of each week.
The health and welfare department says that each department will be expected to take up the slack by improving available first-aid services.
Then the article refers to a statement of Mr. Joe Power, national president. It states:
Joe Power, UNDE national president, has taken the matter directly to Health Minister Monique Begin.
In a letter to the minister Dec. 22, Power protested "in the strongest terms possible" her department's decision to make an almost 25 per cent reduction in man-years for the public service occupational health program.
This next part is very significant I believe. It states:
The reduced health services are a false economy, the letter says. It points out that 27,900 work injuries in the federal public service between April 1, 1977 and March 31, 1978 resulted in a cost of more than $16.6 million.
It is impossible to estimate how much more time and money would be lost if injured workers were not to receive immediate fully-qualified medical attention, the UNDE president writes. However, the figure would probably be in the millions of dollars and thousands of hours, not to mention the possibilty of increased deaths.
I believe that it is false economy, when one is considering the health of the people of Canada, to introduce and to put

February 5, 1979
Health Resources Fund Act
into place restraints or cutbacks in this particular area. Surely there are other fields in which restraint could be exercised- and we have pointed these out-without removing programs that are of such a direct and urgent benefit to the people.
With regard to the allegation or charge that there have not been adequate discussions with the provinces, I would like to express my support for those contentions. It was rather surprising, after all the discussions with regard to negotiation and consultation with the provinces and with regard to how thoroughly various programs have been dealt with and carried out, to hear the minister say in her speech, as recorded at page 2810 of Hansard, dated February 1:
If I go back to the exact nature of this bill, which is to cancel the health resources fund a few years ahead of its natural termination date, I must acknowledge that many members complained in the committee about the fact that no consultation had taken place with the provinces on introducing an earlier cut-off date after which no new projects are to be approved. The fact is that there was very little time for specific consultation when the final decision was taken.
Those comments are rather significant in view of the fact that the government has reached the point where it would cut off a program worked out in consultation with the provinces, and on top of that say there was not sufficient time to consult with them to reduce the time frame of the program by approximately two years.
We tend to think of all these changes in terms of a reduction in the delivery of health services, its effect upon research and so on. I have in my hand a newsletter published by Canadians for Health Research which contains an editorial that I think is very pertinent to this question. It says:
Much has been said during the past two years about the effect of funding cutbacks on the Canadian scientific community and health care delivery system. What has not been stressed is that Canada has an obligation to the people of the world-
The obligations we have to our own people are fundamental, but here this newsletter is saying that Canada has an obligation to the people of the world.
-to provide knowledge and techniques to enable them to achieve minimal levels of health.
Officials of the World Health Organization speaking at the CHR National Conference pointed out that hundreds of millions of people suffer from severe tropical diseases-
And it goes on to mention some diseases, the names of which I cannot pronounce.
-for which there are no cures. The development of new technologies is essential if advances in the control of these major parasitic diseases are to be achieved. The third world does not have the academic and technical resources to do the research on these diseases. Canada does. We therefore have a moral responsibility to provide not only massive amounts of foreign aid to purchase advanced technological products, but to export our knowledge in the field of biomedical research.
Those comments illustrate very clearly that by making a cut such as the government is proposing in this bill, it is affecting not only the health care services within Canada but also those services which could be and should be provided to other parts of the world.
We hear a great deal about consultation between the provinces and the federal government today. It seems to me that

the government ought to take another look at this whole area and reassess their attitude toward provincial responsibility and participation in these programs. At the time the medical care bill was introduced there was a great deal of discussion, and at one point it was thought that the bill would flounder and not be passed, because some of the provinces were not willing to enter into the program as proposed. But finally, after a great deal of arm-twisting, the provinces came in and the medicare plan was put into operation. In this instance the federal government applied strong-tongue tactics-I was about to say strong-arm tactics, but that is not quite right-in order to get the provinces to accept medicare, but just a short while ago the government brought in a measure which put a cap on the expenditures, and the result was that the provincial governments were saddled with additional expenses as far as that particular program was concerned.
Once again, after making a commitment and working out this program with the provinces, the government is reneging and leaving the provinces holding the bag. This is very unfair to the provinces. The result is that there is a great deal of resentment that would not be there had the government taken a more positive position and attitude in their deliberations and discussions with the provinces. This is why we say that the damage to our confederation has been done by a government which fails to recognize the provinces as partners in confederation. I have said before that the relationship between the two levels of government has deteriorated to the point where there is suspicion and distrust, which should not be.
As a result of this bill, the provinces will once again have to accept the fact that another program has been curtailed and, in this case, eliminated two years prior to its cut-off date. The protests have come from this side of the House, and I add my voice to those who have already spoken. But regardless of the protests and representations made, the government will maintain this attitude, which will continue to prevail until the time comes when it is replaced by a government which is more sensitive to the needs of Canadians, a government with policies which are designed to meet those needs in a constructive and adequate fashion.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill before us, as hon. members know, is to eliminate the health resources fund and, in effect, the allocation of $80 million that still remains in the fund which, under normal circumstances, would be paid out to the provinces for essential medical-diagnostic facilities. I, too, would like to add my words of opposition to the elimination of this fund.
I believe that there are many things we can do as a country to improve the health and well-being of Canadian citizens. I want to spend a few minutes on an area which I think is overlooked by almost all modern industrial societies, Mr. Speaker. It is an area, quite frankly, in which all political parties when they are in office have created disaster, and that is nutrition and preventive medicine. I think this is one of the real issues, challenges, perhaps one of the results of an industrial society that the world is overlooking, and I want to make some non-partisan remarks about it.
February 5, 1979

I recall speaking to a senior official in the Saskatchewan government a couple of years ago and asking him what was new in the area of health. He replied, "We have done everything we have to do. We have medicare, hospitalization, cancer programs, eye glasses programs, drug prescription programs and the like." I said, "I commend you. The government of Saskatchewan has led the way in health care in this country and in North America, but in my opinion it has just begun."
Let us look at some of the things I am speaking about, Mr. Speaker, as they relate to the whole area of health in the industrialized world, particularly in the areas of nutrition and preventive medicine. In the United States Senator George McGovern and a team completed a comprehensive study of health in that country about two years ago. They linked six of the leading causes of death to diet and the types of food people eat. They said that North Americans eat far too much sugar, fats and salty foods-that we are digging our graves with our teeth, as the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) has just commented. The World Health Organization has said that about 90 per cent of cancers are caused by the environment and that a large part of that environment is the type of food we consume.
In a white paper produced about three years ago the Food Prices Review Board said that in 1972 about 40 per cent of the hospital days in this country were as a result of the malnutrition of the Canadian people, and the cost was around $2 billion. The former head of Nutrition Canada, a renowned scientist named Dr. Zak Sabry, about the same time said it probably cost more than $2 billion per year. He said that on an annual basis the total cost of poor nutrition to Canada is about $7 billion to $8 billion, of which about $2.5 billion could be saved each year through improved nutrition.
Heart disease was virtually unknown prior to the turn of the century. Many studies link the type of food we eat with the type of ailment. Another interesting report is one which was issued by the Quebec government. Governments of all political stripes in this country have not placed a high enough priority on preventive medicine and nutrition. Last year the federal government, the provinces and municipalities spent on nutrition and nutritional education only about 1 per cent of what the food retailing and processing industries spent on promoting food. Breakfast cereals that are 50 or 60 per cent sugar and things like that which are detrimental to health were promoted.
The Quebec government issued a paper entitled "Une Politique Quebecoise en Matiere de Nutrition" which is a comprehensive study of the nutritional problems of people in this country. They are implementing some of the proposals and I hope this will act as a vanguard in this field, as did the actions of the Saskatchewan government in years gone by in the field on the delivery of health services to everyone regardless of income. The document reports on the state of nutrition in this country. Many people claim that Canadians are not malnourished while other people say we suffer from a great deal of malnutrition.
Health Resources Fund Act
The report also points out that the consumption of alcohol in this country has increased drastically in the last few years. In this regard it states:

It has recently been demonstrated that between 10 and 20 per cent of total calories consumed by the North American adult come under the form of alcool.
And, further:
Mortality due to liver cirrhosis has registered a gross increase of nearly 200 per cent during the last twenty years. The number of deaths has increased from 195 cases in 1951 to 558 in 1971.

So as we see, Mr. Speaker, the types of food and beverages we consumer today lead to very serious health problems and in many cases lead to deaths which should not occur.
A study carried out a few years ago by Nutrition Canada found that one and one-half million Canadians suffered from malnutrition of one form or another. That means they lack the vitamins and minerals that are necessary for the body to function properly.
Some of the information in that report is startling. For example, in this country about 70 per cent of old age pensioners suffer from calcium deficiency. Imagine that in a country with the capacity to produce an unlimited volume of milk, where two years ago farmers were throwing milk away on the steps of the House of Commons because they did not receive a decent price for it in the market, if they could find a market. The report also found that 44 per cent of Canadians had iron deficiency and 60 per cent had vitamin D deficiency. And the list goes on, Mr. Speaker.
The same thing is true in the United States. According to studies in that country in 1955, about 60 per cent of the population had a well-balanced diet. In 1965, ten years later, about 50 per cent of the population had a well-balanced diet.
If we study our eating patterns since World War II, we will find them absolutely frightening for the future of health in this industrialized society. The consumption of dairy products has dropped by 23 per cent, the consumption of fresh fruit by 25 per cent, while the consumption of soft drinks has increased by 80 per cent. In some cases children in the United States average three soft drinks per day. The consumption of pastries has increased by 80 per cent, and of potato chips by 85 per cent. Is it any wonder that the medical experts tell us today that nearly half the adult Canadian population is overweight? And I am not looking at the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)! I do not intend to name names. However, about one half of the Canadian population is obese. That problem can be traced back to the type of diet we have. I was talking about some changes in eating patterns in the United States. The same is true in this country.
One need only look to the Nutrition Canada surveys to find that what is occurring in the United States is also occurring in Canada. I have a study here. The years 1905 to 1910 are given a basic index of 100. You can trace the consumption of certain

February 5, 1979
Health Resources Fund Act
products, one of them being refined sugar. In the years 19051910, the base was 100. In 1973 the base index went up to about 140 or 145. Meat went up to between 145 and 150. If you look at dairy products or cereals and flour, that went down to about 55 or 60, reflecting similar eating patterns that one sees in the United States. The bill before us will eliminate the health resources fund. That $80 million could be spent very usefully on trying to come up with programs and policies which will show Canadians the need to become concerned with the types of food they are eating and with the food system we have in this country.
Many people say that we live longer today, that people do not die as young as they used to. I suggest we take a good look at that argument. If we look at the arguments, facts and data, one point comes very clearly to mind as to why the lifespan is longer now than in 1900. Because of modern medicines and hospitals, we have been able to combat the problem of infant mortality. Babies are not dying as a result of diseases they died of some 70 or 80 years ago. In addition, we have penicillin which has reduced the death rate of people of all ages. If you compare the life expectancy of people over 21 in the year 1900 with the years 1978 and 1979, you find that life expectancy has not gone up significantly. But despite modern medicine, hospitals, surgery, medicare and other services, the average lifespan in Canada in the past 70 or 80 years has not to any significant degree lengthened. The main part of the reason is our food system.
Let us look briefly at the food we consume. The foods we consume in this country contain about 1,800 chemicals or artificial additives. We eat more processed or heavily manufactured foods than ever before. Many people say, "So what?" I remind them that the more food is manufactured or processed, the more vital minerals and vitamins are refined out of that food. I will use the example of canned peas which many of us pick up on the supermarket shelves. When you open a can of peas, warm them on the stove and then consume them, 94 per cent of the food value will have been lost. Only about 6 per cent of the food value remains compared to the value you would get from peas picked fresh from the garden, shelled and eaten in a raw or natural state. I use that as an example of the fact that the more we manufacture our foods, the more we refine out the vital minerals and vitamins.
Let us look at another study. Since World War II the consumption of highly refined foods, canned foods, frozen foods, TV dinners as well as food consumed in restaurants has increased extremely rapidly. Along with the acceleration of manufactured food has been a corresponding decrease in the value of nutrients.
As I have said, many chemicals are put into our food. There is the whole area of artificial colouring. An orange is injected with orange dye to make it more orange. Chickens are injected with dye to make them a certain colour. These things are totally unnecessary and scientists are now starting seriously to question them. This practice has only occurred in the last 30, 40 or possibly 50 years. The cumulative effects of many of

these changes are not known in a very concrete or definitive way.
Many Canadians would be surprised to know that the average person consumes over 100 pounds of sugar per year. Not much of that comes out of the sugar bowl; most of it has been added to other foods. There is a lot of medical evidence which indicates that we are eating far too much sugar. It is not good for us. Many breakfast cereals and canned fruits actually contain more sugar than the particular food one is supposedly purchasing.
All these matters are of great concern to me. They are of increasing concern to a larger and larger number of people in Canada and in other countries. In addition to what I have mentioned, there is increasing concern about the safety aspect with regard to the pesticides and insecticides being used. There is growing concern about the hormones given to animals as well as the antibiotics being injected into them. There is concern about forcefeeding of animals in order to fatten them rapidly. There is a lot of concern about how we raise chickens and animals, how we are changing the genetics of some of the animals we eventually eat.
Because of growing evidence that we are so rapidly changing the food system, it would be worth while to put more money into the area of preventive medicine and nutrition. We in this House have often been reminded of escalating health and hospital costs in Canada. Too little attention is being paid to preventive medicine and other ways of bringing down these rapidly escalating costs. None of us have the magic solution. That is why we need a lot more research in this area.
Worth-while research is being done in other countries. Israel, France and Norway all have eating patterns and food different from that in Canada. It is worth taking a look at them. I want to deal with eight or nine points which I feel might improve the health of Canadians.
First, we need a comprehensive educational program. Just the other day I talked to someone who was convinced she eats very well. She consumes three or four cokes a day. Her favourite foods are french fries and macaroni.


An hon. Member:: What's wrong with macaroni?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Anything in a reasonable amount will not harm you. However, if it is your diet for many, many years it will do some harm. Therefore, we need an educational program to inform Canadians about foods they are consuming and those that they should look at more positively.
Second, we should consider a system of nutritional labelling. This has been tried in other countries. People would then know from the label what they are about to consume. The label should indicate the percentage of sugar, fats, cholesterol, solids, and anything else contained in the food.
Another thing that has been suggested by the Canadian Committee on Diet and Cardiovascular Disease is the use of a government logo. The logo would mark foods that are part of a
February 5, 1979

healthy and balanced diet. People would know by the very presence of the logo whether or not what they are consuming is part of a healthy and balanced diet. And here is an idea which could be borrowed from a country like Norway: you could use the taxation system as a way of discriminating in favour of nutritional foods and against foods of non-nutritional value by imposing higher taxes on foods that are unhealthy, lowering the taxes on, and thus lowering the price of, foods which are healthier for people. Norway is experimenting in this direction.
Another thing which could be done, and I thought we had already started to do this in this country, is to subsidize some of the basic foods such as milk and bread. There used to be consumer subsidies on them but they have now been withdrawn.


An hon. Member:: Not from milk.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Very well, there is still a subsidy on milk, but a large part of the subsidy on fluid milk has been withdrawn-


An hon. Member:: Powdered milk.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Powdered milk. It was announced before Christmas that the subsidy on bread would be withdrawn and on January 1 we saw the effect on the price of a loaf of bread in every store in this country. Another thing that could be done is school food programs and school milk programs so that people while they were young would have a chance to eat more nutritious foods in the schools instead of using the classical coke machines and chips, so that children could drink milk and fruit juices and so on in school cafeterias.
Another thing that is very important is the type of advertising beamed at young people. One thing I like that the Quebec government is doing in the area of consumer legislation today is the banning of advertising directed to people under the age of 13. I never used to worry about this until very recently, but I worry about it now because I have a five-year-old son and I see the impact television is making on him and on his preferences. No matter how much we try to tell him that certain breakfast cereals, for example, are not good for him and that other foods such as whole grain cereals are much better for him, we find it hard to convince him because of the fancy ads on television with fancy characters promoting some of the more junky type foods.


An hon. Member:: Turn off the television.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Some people say turn off the television, but that is very difficult to do with young people. In the International Year of the Child perhaps one of our concerns should be getting rid of advertising that tries to promote food of nonnutritional value in the mind of a small child. I see a member of the cabinet shaking his head in the negative. I hope he doesn't really mean that, because it is so important in our society that we give the younger people the proper values and the proper type of education so that they will understand the types of foods and the types of values that are good for them in their formative years.
Health Resources Fund Act
These are just a few of the things that I think could be done to improve the health of the nation. That is why when this bill came back to the House for third reading a couple of days ago I wanted to get up and say a few words about what I think is one of the great problems of the industrialized food system and what it is probably doing to our bodies and to our health. It seems to me it is worth putting a few more bucks into this system in terms of the future of our country, because nothing is as important as the health of people. I believe politicians have to take a lead in this area, just as politicians had to take a lead in the area of the delivery of health services, medicare, hospitalization and good hospitals, and modern drugs and technology. We must now start delivering the other half of that formula, which is a good, wholesome food system and a good, balanced diet, along with such things as exercise.
I think that by investing a few million dollars we could reap several billion dollars worth of return, as the health officials to whom I referred have suggested, from the improved health and happiness of the country. Perhaps we could create a much better society for all of us and for those who are about to come in the years ahead.


Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to enter this debate today as one who represents an area with a large Indian population whose health services really need to be questioned.
The minister proposes to cut some $84 million from science support programs and medical research. During the recent controversy about the reduction in Indian health services we heard frightening statistics on this subject. Indian women in Canada live an average of 30 years less than other women; the life expectancy of Indian men is about 22 years shorter than that of the average Canadian male; the infant mortality rate is twice the national average and natives suffer a much higher incidence of diseases such as tuberculosis and hepatitis.
Perhaps even more startling than today's pathology and mortality figures are reports upon the stature of the North American Indian of yesterday. Many of the facts I am about to put on record were noted in an NIB paper two years ago; I thought it was time they were brought to the attention of the House.
The agricultural Iroquois male of the early 1800s averaged in excess of six feet in height compared to the average European male of that same time standing five feet two inches tall. Infections and chronic disease were unknown in the pre-colonial Americas, while in Europe, during the dark ages, whole populations fell to the ravages of various plagues and diseases. Of 30,000 identified diseases, only 87 were known to exist among the Indian people of the Americas. The difference is attributed to the absence of fresh fruits and vegetables in the European diet and the almost total reliance on dried grains and domesticated meat.
Published studies regarding the Indian people show the race is superior in bodily proportions, colour and gesture; free from tuberculosis, syphilis, and the consequent physical and mental
2888

February 5, 1979
Health Resources Fund Act
deformities. They were strangers to leprosy, scrofula, cancer, and nervous prostration.
Archaeology has failed to uncover evidence among pre-contact Indian burial excavations of modern day bone deficiences, cavities, rheumatism, arthritis, etc. Indian women were unusually strong, often continuing their regular physical activities immediately following childbirth. Infant mortality was rare.
Contact historians of the early eighteenth and nineteenth centuries concur that the Indian people represented a superior physical make-up. Today the Indian people suffer from gall bladder infections, infectious diseases, high infant mortality, obesity, retarded physical growth, and chronic diseases.
The incidence of diabetes among Indians is reported to be five times as high as it is among the general population. A few weeks ago the minister was presented with a blanket by the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs with the assurance that it was disease free. The gift was a reference to blankets containing a smallpox virus given to the Ottawa Indians on the upper Great Lakes by British officers 200 years earlier in an attempt to wipe out native settlements. Significant here is that, whether by intent or not, European immigrants introduced along with fatal illnesses the need for the benefits of advanced health care.
Following the confederation of 1867 it was recognized that the federal government should be responsible for Indians and the lands reserved for Indians. While not provided for in the federal statutes, health care services were supplied to Indians, often by surgeons in the Northwest Mounted Police, and by the Hudson's Bay Company. This common practice was first documented by an order in council dated May 11, 1877, appointing Daniel Haggerty, MD as medical superintendent to the Indians of Keewatin and the northwest. Health care services to Indian people over the next century developed gradually, hindered by a changing or non-existent administration and poor organization.
In 1905 Dr. P. Bryce was appointed medical superintendent within the department of Indian affairs. After five years his position was terminated and not reinstated until 1927. At about that time the first field nurses were appointed to work on reserves. However, the general health of the Indian people continued in a downward slide.
The first nursing station ever to be built in the area I represent was built in 1947. At that time it was a case of survival of the fittest. Many Indian people at that time trapped away from their communities. They came back to their communities to buy groceries, to sell their furs and so forth. It would not be unusual to see a family return in the spring with two or three of their children missing, because at that time the Indian people had to depend either on the medicine man or on their knowledge of how to treat a child when it became sick. As nursing stations were built a job had to be performed by the department, and I must give credit to some of the first nurses to come into the northern part of Manitoba-I am sure the same is true in other provinces-because there was a mood
of distrust with regard to the nurses. At that time there were many medicine men who would not accept the fact that there were some who were more powerful than they to treat the sick in various communities, but over a period of time the communities built up a trust for the government's ability to provide health care services.
In 1946 family allowances were introduced, and parents whose children were not attending school could not collect. This brought families closer together. It brought families in from outlying areas to communities in which they were not accustomed to living. They had been accustomed to roaming the land, living in winter camps, trapping, fishing, hunting, selling their furs and raising their families. When the family allowance was introduced, it was compulsory that children attend school. In order to collect family allowances, Indian families had to move into communities. They built log shacks. They began living, not always peacefully, with their next door neighbours and sending their children to school. This happened only 30 years ago, which is a very short time in any country's life.
Then came environmental problems within those communities. The people were not accustomed to living so closely together. There was more money, and as a result there was garbage to contend with. There was no garbage pick-up and no running water. No facilities whatsoever were provided. This is the treatment the Indian people received, and Indian people did not trust the medicine the white man brought in. They did not feel it would be effective in treating very sick people. Medicine men were used extensively just 30 years ago. When we talk about expending to do research on the health of Indian people, we are talking about something which started only 30 years ago. I am sure that some of the studies which began 30 years ago are still ongoing, but they will have to be discontinued because funds are going to be cut off.
In 1945 Indian health services were transferred from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to the Department of National Health and Welfare. Important here is the fact that only the administration of the diagnostic and treatment aspects of health services was transferred. Control of environmental health conditions remained under the authority of the Indian affairs department. This is when the Indian affairs department became responsible for the health environment of the Indian people and Indian health services came under another department. In that way the buck could be passed and people could say, "It is not our responsibility; it is up to the other department". I will get into that a little later because we do not have one department taking full responsibility for the health of Indian people in Canada.
In 1962 a further amalgamation took place as Indian health services merged with six other federal health programs to establish the medical services branch, as it is known today. The refinement of Indian health care services to a single branch within the government has done little to help status Indians on reserves. Symptoms are treated, but the causes are left to others.

February 5, 1979

The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is responsible for the over-all well-being of the Indian people of Canada. In a statement on January 24, 1979, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) said that the basic causes of the poor health of Indian people are socioeconomic; for example, inadequate housing, water supply and sewage disposal, and unemployment. That is true, but only in part, because 1 can cite at least a dozen other examples from the reserves in my constituency.
Just recently I took a two-week extensive trip through the eastern part of my constituency. The Minister of National Health and Welfare visited there last summer. Her visits consisted of dropping into a community, going to the nursing station, having someone meet her to take her out fishing and for a short lunch, coming back, catching the aeroplane and flying on to another community. The minister could then stand up in the House and say that she had visited the communities and that there were no problems. I call it a 24-hour wonder when someone decides to investigate an Indian reserve and 24 hours later comes back with all the information she feels she should have and makes a glowing report. Some people wander in and 24 hours later wander out, and people up there wonder what they really came for.
The minister mentioned the socio-economic aspect. I went to seven reserves which comprise approximately 6,000 people in total. In other parts of the country we have seen school enrolments drop, but in my part of the country enrolment has increased at least threefold over the past seven years. There is not sufficient schoolroom space in many of those communities. Schools that are now only three years old are short of two classrooms. I do not know where the planners were in the various departments, but anyone who had taken the time to look at the statistics and the growth rate in the particular communities could have predicted that more schools would be required. Now, because of the government's restraint program, we see in many communities material which the department had shipped to the community for the purpose of building a school lying there in a heap and not being used because the Treasury Board has cut off further funds to build the additional facilities.
Housing is the number one priority in those communities. I am glad to see the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Faulkner) is leaving the House.


James Hugh Faulkner: Telephone.


Cecil Morris Smith: He just cannot face the music, that is all. In many of the communities there are four and five families living in one house. The Minister of National Health and Welfare points to the lack of housing. I am sure there are a dozen people on this side of the House representing Indian communities who could have told the minister that, and who in fact have been telling her that over the past four or five years.
The trouble is that people in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development have a phobia regarding
Health Resources Fund Act
the only type of housing which they consider is required in northern Manitoba and in isolated areas, namely, a frame house. Some designer has designed a frame house which he considers to be adequate for the Indian people. I could take you, Mr. Speaker, into the homes that I have visited myself personally in Oxford House, Wasagamac, St. Theresa, Garden Hill and Red Sucker Lake. When these houses were built, they were probably built to the standards prescribed by the then minister of Indian affairs and northern development or some of his officials. These houses are not equipped with running water or with other modern facilities such as a hot water tank. In the winter time, when three or four families live in one house, there are at least two or three tubs of water sitting on the stove in order to heat water for the occupants. This generates massive amounts of condensation which in turn frosts up the windows and the doors, to the extent that neither can be opened. The neighbour, if he can get out of his own house, has to come in and open the door in the morning. There are no doorknobs left in most of those homes. There is a piece of rope attached through a hole in the door, and you have to haul on that to open the door. Until such time as these homes in the north are equipped to provide running water, the people there may as well go back to the conventional log home.
In many of the communities I visited people are saying they will rebel and ask the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to put a log housing program back into operation. They claim that their children were far healthier when they lived in log homes than they are in the sweat boxes in which they have to live today. All you have to do is to talk to the nurses at the various nursing stations. They do a wonderful job but they will tell you how frustrating it is for them at times when they see the idiotic approach taken by the Minister of National Health and Welfare cutting back on certain facilities and services in those communities. Those nurses are working their hearts out, not on preventive care but on emergency types of operations. What we need is preventive research in these communities to improve the health of the people.
The reason I am singling out the Indian communities is that I feel they are the ones at this time who are suffering the most. We are removed from it all, living here in the city. If someone here breaks his little toe, an ambulance with a siren comes screaming down and takes him to hospital. In the area to which I am referring, there are no roads or access leading in or out. The only way to get in there is by aircraft, and it is a 350 or 400-mile trip to Winnipeg. Many times the radio facilities are not working. Thank goodness we now have telephones in most of those communities, thanks to the Sterling Lyon Manitoba government. People in the remote areas do not know to whom to turn. At the many meetings that were held in the two weeks which I spent in seven communities, people were pleading with me to do something about the decisions that have been taken by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, because they could see that the first nursing stations built 30 years ago and the new nursing stations that have been built to replace the ones of 30 years ago will deteriorate and
80047-41 '/2

February 5, 1979
Health Resources Fund Act
that a slow erosion of the services provided to that community will take place.
The decision of the minister was contained in the first guidelines which were put out. I am sure she flew this flag not expecting anyone to say too much about it, but thank goodness the Indian people spoke up, as did many members of parliament on this side, about the guidelines that came out. Can you imagine a person living on welfare, by no choice of his own, going down with a prescription from a doctor and only being able to have the price of one of the three prescriptions listed covered by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or the Department of National Health and Welfare while the other two would have to be covered by him if he wanted to take the medication? Many people in that situation would not have sufficient money in their pockets to buy the other two items.
The minister spoke about abuses. I can talk about many abuses in this government. Just a few days ago we heard the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) (Mrs. Cam-pagnolo) say she would make $18 million available to any city in Canada which would come up with a National Hockey League franchise, while at the same time the Minister of National Health and Welfare was saying she will cut down the medical services to the Indian people.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Cecil Morris Smith: I cannot understand them. They talk about waste and abuse, but all they are doing is playing politics on the backs of the people of this country, especially the Indian people.
To say that the cause is socioeconomic does not relieve the minister of the responsibility for correcting what I call a festering sore. Rather than side-stepping those serious problems, the minister should be tackling them with all her resources and making additional funds available for research so that we can get on with preventive care, not just emergency care. For this reason funds should be made available for continuing medical research. Only 30 years ago the first nursing station was built in Manitoba. Today the government are taking $84 million out of circulation to build a hockey arena in some city that is going to sponsor a National Hockey League franchise. That is ridiculous! To go beyond the mere symptoms and treat the original cause is what the minister has to do. That is her responsibility. The minister's recent directive requiring treaty Indians to pay for eye glasses, drugs, dental care and transportation for medical purposes is a further retrogressive step affecting those who need help most. When will the minister leave the track rutted by her predecessor and shoulder her responsibilities?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, particularly relating to measures dealing with health, the government of the day may become known as the halfway house

government, because historically it has undertaken programs which seem to reflect the philosophy of the Liberal party, and at a time such as this it has decided to withdraw. It has withdrawn at a time when the objectives of the policies have not been achieved in full. This is a very retrograde step to take. The government made commitments through the Department of National Health and Welfare respecting the improvement of teaching and treatment facilities, but it has withdrawn before they were completed. Perhaps this is as critical a point in the program covered by the act as any and the step taken by the government is one which is inexcusable and unforgiveable.
Every now and then in the life of a politician there comes a point when one finds himself or herself to be a pawn of the circumstances of the day. Certainly the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) finds herself in the unenviable position of being a pawn of the government which cuts back on its promises to Canadians, particularly as they relate to health.
This proposed cutback will build in regional disparities by withdrawing from or reducing programs which were intended to arrest the difficulties in the less fortunate areas of Canada. In particular, the proposal will extend the disparities the government has professed it will cure. It is rather peculiar to watch the expenditures of government as it looks at what is political and how to gain votes. As mentioned by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith), the government will build arenas but cuts back on health. It is hard to follow the logic of that type of political philosophy. While the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) (Mrs. Campagnolo) may be sitting on the pedestal at this moment in time, the Minister of National Health and Welfare is subject to criticisms of the severest kind which can be levelled at a politician.
I regret very much the transfer of moneys from one field to another, particularly when the job is not complete as the moneys are transferred. There is no indication the government is prepared to honour the projects presently under way by extending federal aid to the provinces. For instance, a project in the city of Saint John was to be financed partly by the federal government. Yet there has been no assurance in writing to the minister of health of New Brunswick as of noon today that the federal government in fact will honour its commitment to this ongoing project. I suppose we will see government members from New Brunswick rise in support of the bill, in spite of the fact that there is no assurance that present commitments will be honoured and that moneys in fact will be advanced.
There were two further projects in the province of New Brunswick which anticipated assistance through the government's program in order to provide better teaching and more intensive care facilities in areas where they do not exist. At the present time the people in those areas are doing the best they can with the available facilities. In the cities of Edmundston and Campbellton two projects were on the drawing board which were to be built with the aid of the program during its term. These projects would have provided better health care within two federal Liberal constituencies in the province of
February 5, 1979

New Brunswick, but federal government assistance has been withdrawn.
There is very little excuse for extending the disparities which exist in health care in the less favoured provinces, as this proposal will do. This is but one example of the inequities which exist in the less favoured areas of Canada. Extended health care is assisted by the federal government on the basis of $20 per capita. Perhaps that does not mean much to Alberta and British Columbia, and perhaps it is not necessary in either case; but $20 per capita in the less favoured provinces is not enough to help them extend their levels of care to those of the more favoured provinces.
I do not wish to carry this to the ridiculous, but it goes without saying that the larger centres always will have the best care of any centres in Canada. That is by virtue of the opportunities for health officials, doctors and nurses to practise in specialty fields, which opportunities cannot be provided in smaller communities. Perhaps there will be only half a dozen major centres in Canada where maximum care can be extended in health; but there are hundreds of communities which need to come a little closer to the level of the greater centres. There was a step which aided them in doing so, but now it is to be withdrawn. At least two projects in New Brunswick will not be favoured with the assistance offered by the program.
The government's proposal contradicts totally the concept of long-term planning for health care. As I am not a medical doctor, I will not try to infringe upon the medical field by suggesting specific methods of extending health care, but as a member of the House I am interested in equality of care. This present step by the govenment will constrict the opportunity for equality in the less favoured areas of Canada, as will practically all programs which presently are being cut back. These will be known as the "Begin years" in health, when the Government of Canada practised austerity by withdrawing some of its support from medical, hospital care, extended care services and educational facilities. While we have no political common ground, I sympathize with the reflection which people will have upon the term of office of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Certainly the minister has become the pawn of the government because of its withdrawal from responsibility in providing health care in the country.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Agriculture
Gray)-Foreign Investment Review Act-Inquiry as to compliance with principles of international business conduct; the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen)-Industry-Takeover of Canadian businesses.
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, notices of motions and public bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is motion No. 7 standing in the name of the hon. member for Renfrew North-Nipissing East (Mr. Hopkins) stood by unanimous agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is motion No. 9 standing in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott) stood by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

[DOT] (U00)


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of taking the appropriate steps to make agriculture a more viable industry in Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity of discussing in this House a problem which is near and dear to the hearts of the many of us who sit here as representatives of rural ridings. We know that in spite of the great admiration the current federal agriculture minister has for himself and for his abilities, which he has expressed on many occasions in this House, agriculture in this country is indeed having great difficulty. As a result farmers are moving off the land in ever-increasing numbers.
To illustrate the problem briefly, it seems to boil down to one of constantly falling income and constantly increasing costs. The problem can be well illustrated in terms of income. The average farm in this country, particularly in the west, involves a total capital investment in the area of $173,000, including land, machinery, equipment and all those things required to conduct a farming operation. If one were to take that $173,000 in cash and invest it in a savings account, or perhaps in bonds, one could reasonably expect to gain a return of at least 10 per cent. This would mean an expected income from this size of deposit of somewhere in the neighbourhood of $17,300. The fact is that the net income from a farm with a

February 5, 1979
Agriculture
capital outlay of this size is nowhere near the income that could be derived from an investment of that money directly in a savings account of a long-term nature. As a matter of fact, my calculations indicate that the average farm I have described would produce a net income of somewhere between $13,000 and $14,000.
We have a situation in which a man engaged in agriculture in this country not only does not get paid for his work, but he loses money on his investment since he could do better in terms of return by simply taking the money out of farming and putting it into a savings account of some sort.
The result of this situation has been a mass exodus of people in rural areas from farms into the cities, with a subtantial rural depopulation and the destruction of many small towns which dry up when these people move away. Indeed, this has resulted in the destruction of a lifestyle which many Canadians have enjoyed in the past.
The situation has reached the point where virtually no one is entering agriculture, particularly young farmers, because prospects for a reasonable income are poor. If a young man does decide to farm, the capital required is so great that he must borrow a huge amount of money, and he finds it virtually impossible to meet the cost of servicing that sort of loan. As a result, most of these young people must spend nearly half their time, usually in the winter months, working elsewhere at some other type of employment simply to keep the farm running. It seems to me there is something wrong with a system under which that can happen. It is not right that a young farmer who undertakes an operation with an investment of $173,000 must get a job in the oil fields or somewhere else simply in order to stay in the business of farming.
When we examine that situation we see there is something terribly wrong with the policies this government has been following. In my view there are two main things that should be considered and studied if some kind of corrective action is to take place. Steps must be taken to increase gross income to the farmer. On the other side of the coin, something needs to be done to reduce the cost of operation: that is, the cost of machinery, fuel, repair parts, farm labour and so on.
Let me come to the key question posed by this motion. Given the facts I have already laid out, is agriculture really a viable industry? We know that world consumption of food and feed grains has continued to grow on the average 5 per cent per year. If we compound this rate we will see that in 15 years consumption will double. When we look at growth in production in this country we will see that it will not nearly keep up with this expected increase in demand.
The Canadian cattle industry lost more than $400 million in the last four years, and much of this loss can be reflected in the decrease in producer equity of some 18 per cent. In other words, because the beef industry was in such dire straits in terms of low prices, 18 per cent of herds have been sold off, resulting in a shortage even greater than we anticipated. If these herds are to be rebuilt it is essential that producers have confidence not only that the market recovery which is now

being enjoyed to some extent remains permanent, but also that the government will not act to frustrate that recovery.
All Canadian producers will remember the action of the Canadian government in 1976 when huge quantities of offshore beef came into our market and seriously depressed Canadian cattle prices. This created major problems in respect of our relations with our neighbours, and certainly major problems for the beef industry.
I recall very clearly the minister standing in this House at the time complaining that there was overproduction, that we had a huge surplus of beef, and asking farmers to cut production as that was the only way to improve prices. What he neglected to say at that time was that the huge surplus we supposedly has was largely the result of huge imports from offshore sources. If we examine the figures in respect to our own production very carefully, even during those years when we had this supposed surplus we will see that our production was not sufficient during any of those years to meet Canada's own demand.
The other question I want to touch upon is what can be done to resolve the situation. After all, the motion does say that the government must take steps to make agriculture more viable, so clearly it is necessary to make some recommendations as to how this can be done.
To begin with, some changes in the tax system are required to make it more equitable. Trade and economic policies must be adjusted so that Canadian agriculture is capable of competing efficiently in both world and domestic markets in respect of the commodities we produce. Government policies must be aimed at maximizing our competitive position and extending our markets, rather than what seems to have become the general trend of this government, simply to be satisfied with bringing forward government support and supply management programs.
In looking at the situation in the long term, it seems to me that support subsidies and supply management are at best short-term solutions and that the long-term solutions must rest on improving efficiency, expanding the market and stabilizing prices through these expanded and reasonable markets.
There have been problems with regard to offshore trade policies. I have already mentioned that too much beef has been brought in, the result of which has caused the artificial depression of our own prices. We on this side of the House have suggested, to avoid this difficulty in the future, that a longterm beef import policy be instituted to protect the producers from artificial world surplus and competition from other products.
There have been problems with regard to grain and they are partially due to the fact that the international grain arrangement has expired. We are carrying on negotiations, but at the moment grains are at the mercy of market forces and as a result prices are not what they could be. There should be greater effort on the part of this government to reinstate the international grain arrangement that would guarantee the
February 5, 1979

maintenance of a reasonable floor for prices of exported grains.
The biggest problem which needs to be studied very carefully and corrected, and regarding which the government has shown great neglect, is transportation. We must take steps to ensure the adequacy of grain transportation and handling, that the cost of transporting grain remains at a reasonable level, and that the structure of the handling industry itself adjusts to function with greatest efficiency.
There has been a suggestion on the part of the government that the Crowsnest pass rates may be changed. If one looks at the history of this government, one becomes very frightened that these changes which they are talking about will only further depress farm income. We want to make sure that if the Crowsnest pass rates are changed, such changes will reflect compensation to the railways for their work and that these compensatory costs will not be borne by the producers but by the government from its general revenue.
Another problem in the area of grain handling is strikes. There have been occasions over the past decade and perhaps even longer when ships from other countries have come to our ports to be loaded, but because of strikes and poor transportation policies they have waited for days and days, incurring demurrage charges of approximately $5,000 per day per ship. All these costs are pawned off on the producer of grain.
The result of this inefficient grain handling system has been that Canada's share of world markets for wheat has dropped from 24 per cent to 14 per cent, while the United States, with its more efficient handling system and vigorous marketing efforts, has increased its share from 38 per cent to 41 per cent. Clearly, this is an area of great importance to Canada, and we all look to this government to take some action to ensure that labour disputes in the grain handling industry be settled in a reasonable way.
My party has suggested that it is time we re-examine the old strike weapon, particularly in areas of essential services, which includes railway transportation and grain handling, and that it be replaced by a body that we have named the public interest disputes commission. The powers of that body would be either to settle a dispute or, at least, to facilitate negotiations toward an agreeable settlement. In either case, something is required beyond what we are currently experiencing that would have the effect of smoothing out the business of grain handling and delivery.
There are other members who have indicated a desire to speak on this very important issue, and since we have only an hour for private members' business I would like to conclude by saying that agriculture is a large business which requires the concentrated efforts of governments at all levels and the concentrated attention of all the institutions involved in transport, production, marketing and distribution of agricultural products. Concentrated attention is required toward keeping our producers in business and maintaining a high quality of product to feed the people of this country.
Agriculture
As I mentioned earlier, we have an aging population in the rural areas and fewer people are going into farming. The danger in the long term is that there will be fewer and fewer producers and, therefore, we will not be able to produce enough to feed our people, making us more and more dependent on imports for our food supply. Given the volatile situations which arise in the world from time to time, it seems to me that a government that has a policy of becoming more and more dependent on other countries for our food supply is not looking after the best interests of this country.
We have two choices, and they are these. Either this government takes action to ensure that we continue to do what Canada does best-to grow food in such a way that those involved in the industry will be adequately compensated for their labours-or, if it fails to do that, the only possible alternative which will assure Canada of a long-term food supply is to replace this lazy government. I suggest that the latter is the only solution to this problem from a long-term point of view.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on this very important motion before us. The hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) has called on the government to make agriculture more viable through its policies. My main concern is that unless there are radical changes in the government's agricultural policy, our country will not be by the year 2000 self-sufficient in producing our own needs. That statement was made recently by the Science Council of Canada and is rather shocking in view of the fact that food and agriculture represent $30 billion to this country each year.
Agriculture is our most important industry and a very important part of this country. We must put more stress and emphasis on the food and agriculture system. If we continue as we are now, the day will come when this country will be a net importer of food. Even more shocking is the fact that if we take away the grains and oil seeds which are produced in such great abundance in western Canada, we are already a net importer of food. For example if we eliminate grains and oil seeds from last year's agricultural income, we were a net importer of food into our country in the amount of $1.8 billion. This is a very shocking indictment of the government which sits across the way in terms of its lack of planning in the food and agriculture industry of our nation.
Let us now look at a few statistics which I think are absolutely startling. We are a large country with a relatively small population. If we had planned our food production well we should be producing enough food to feed not only ourselves but other people around the world.
Only 4 per cent of Canada's vast land area is arable land, Mr. Speaker. We have about 460 million acres which can be farmed of which around 104 million acres are under cultivation. This is where things get frightening. We find that through a lack of government policy a lot of that farm land is being paved. We are losing some 250 acres of prime agricul-

February 5, 1979
Agriculture
ture land per day to factories, highways, housing developments. 1 understand that the Department of Fisheries and the Environment has federal land use policy under consideration, and I hope this is true. During the past year we have asked the minister many questions about a federal land use program that, with the provinces, would reserve food land for the production of food and that would encourage industrial development on land that cannot produce food. We understand that a policy directive to that effect is being produced. I hope it is a tough policy that will make sure we preserve food land for the production of food.
One of the tragedies of this country is that cities such as Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver are located on the best agricultural land. Once land is paved over it cannot be reclaimed. Once there is a housing development, an expressway, a city park or anything on it, the land cannot be reclaimed. I do not think that makes any sense whatsoever. There are many places in Canada where factories and developments could be placed-sites not far from Montreal or Toronto on land that is not fit for farming. If it were used for this purpose, then the food land could be reserved for the production of food.
The only government to do anything important in this area is the government of British Columbia under the former premier, Mr. Barrett. It introduced a bill four or five years ago that reserved food land for the production of food. A similar approach is being considered in Quebec. I think the federal government should act in this area because there is a lot of land controlled by the federal government that could be rezoned. Cost-sharing plans could be introduced to entice provinces to put away food land for the production of food. These things should be done if we are to have a more viable agriculture industry.
We know that when urban population doubles the amount of arable land is reduced by one third. Today we are importing foods that we should not be importing. I am not talking of growing cucumbers in snowbanks, as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) once spoke about; I am talking about self-sufficiency in such basic things as beef. We produce only about 94 per cent of the beef we consume, and there really is no reason why we could not produce it all.
There are many other products in which we are not self-sufficient, such as broilers. About a year ago the Agricultural Research Institute of Canada said that because of the tremendous importation of chickens the gross economic loss to Canada in 1977 was over $100 million. Mr. Speaker, that means jobs on the farm, in the handling and processing of eggs and food in general. Money could be saved or generated if this commodity was produced in our own country. There would be a positive effect on the balance of trade and on the Canadian dollar. These are reasons why we must strive toward greater food self-sufficiency.
1 should like to suggest that we should use a lot of our waste heat and energy to heat huge greenhouses that would produce a lot more fruit and vegetables. So much of what we consume

comes from the United States and elsewhere when it should really be produced in Canada.
In a nutshell, Mr. Speaker, I believe that if we do not begin preserving farm land for the production of food, if we do not plan the agricultural sector better, if we do not start encouraging farmers to produce food at a stable price then even if we include grain and oil seeds this country will not be self-sufficient by the year 2000, as the Science Council of Canada has said.
My second concern is that the farmer is receiving less and less of the food dollar. About 25 years ago the farmer received around 60 per cent of the food dollar, but today he receives slightly under 40 per cent. More and more of the food dollar is going to the large wholesalers, retailers and processors-to the middlemen who process, manufacture, package and transport the food. This is a matter which should be of great concern not only to farmers but also to consumers, especially when you look at the rapidly escalating price of food-19'/2 per cent in 1978. The middle man receives the greatest share of that increase.
Questions were asked in the House today about the escalating price of beef. All of us know that the farmer deserves a greater return for his cattle. For three or four years cattle prices have been poor. When the price of beef went up on Friday by 18 per cent at the stockyards, it was predicted that by today or tomorrow supermarket prices would increase by 10 per cent and shortly by another 8 per cent. I question why this should happen so quickly when they are using old inventory beef from their lockers. The farmers and the consumers are concerned about such things as the power of the middleman, in this case the supermarkets and packing plants, to manipulate prices.
Recently when CSIP issued a report showing that profits in the food and beverage industry had gone up by 63 per cent in the last year, consumers were, of course, scandalized. I think farmers and consumers have found a common villain-the middleman who all too often is taking too large a share of the food dollar. This is an area the government should be looking into.
My third and final concern is transportation. I see the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) in the House making notes. I hope he will rise to utter a few graceful words on this subject.
The transportation system in this country is a national joke, as is borne out in statistics issued recently by the Canadian Wheat Board. These show that because of a lack of boxcars and because of deficiencies in the railway system in this country, we have lost sales amounting to $230 million. There is no excuse for this, Mr. Speaker. There is no reason why we cannot have a proper rail system, a good delivery system and enough boxcars to transport the grain to market.
We speak of national unity, of a new constitution and priorities for the country. I see transportation as a key to uniting the nation so that all parts of the country have equal access to trade and equal opportunities for development. It
February 5, 1979

often makes westerners angry when they consider the discrepancy in freight rates in the country. Cattle can be shipped from Saskatchewan to Toronto on a pound per pound basis cheaper than the processed meat can be shipped. When that is done, the jobs and the money for the processing and slaughtering of the cattle are in Toronto and other parts of southern Ontario. It should be done closer to the source of the product, in this case western Canada. It is because of things like this that Canadians feel alienated and cynical, not just toward the federal government, but to our whole system today. This may not seem important to some people, but it is very important to the beef producer.
The national unity debate is an opportunity to make agriculture more viable and to make our transportation system more equitable for all Canadians.
These are a few of the concerns I have as a westerner in terms of making agriculture more viable and ensuring that we are self-sufficient in food. We will not be if we do not change some of the government policies.
The government must be a lot tougher on the middle man who is ripping off both the consumer and the producer, taking a greater and greater share of the food dollar. As I said about an hour ago in the House, he is radically changing the whole food system in terms of our safety. It is terrifying.
Finally, transportation must be a tool for national development and national unity. It must work on behalf of everyone so that what the farmer produces is processed, developed, packaged and so on as close as possible to the source. In the case of beef, this should be in western Canada. In the case of dairy farming, it should be in places like Quebec and eastern Ontario. The same should apply to fruits and vegetables. These are matters to which we must address ourselves if we are to make agriculture more viable.
Another item for the future is escalating energy costs which are radically changing farming in this country. These might reverse the move from larger and larger more capital and energy-intensive farms to the smaller, more efficient and, in my opinion, more desirable farms. We must look at the cost of energy. It was brought to my attention last week by the Agriculture Institute of Canada that there is not a single person in the Department of Agriculture who co-ordinates energy policy or energy research as it pertains to agriculture. That is one problem the government should correct. It may save this country millions of dollars in the years ahead.
A lot of experiments are being conducted with regard to alternatives on the farm, energy, using some of the waste heat, recycling by-products, the whole question of biomass and so on. More research has to be done and the government should look into this.
If the farmer could be guaranteed a basic standard of living or income, he would produce the food. It is very frustrating to the farmer not to know what his income will be in the months ahead. When he begins to raise a calf in the spring, he does not know what it will sell for in the fall. The same is true of hogs
Agriculture
and other commodities. It depends on the world climate, international markets, the stock exchange and so on. That is what dictates the price for his animal.
I maintain that if we make it a national priority to guarantee the price of commodities to the farmer within certain realistic variations, the farmer would produce food. The consumer at the other end of the food chain would pay a consistent price for the product in the supermarket. One need only compare two commodities, beef and eggs.
This government has done a very good job in terms of guaranteeing a constant supply of eggs through the National Egg Marketing Board. The producer is guaranteed a constant price. On the other side, the consumer pays a stable price for eggs, a price no higher and usually lower than that in the United states.
When it comes to beef, it is the exact opposite. The producer never knows what he is going to get for his livestock. There are tremendous fluctuations in the price the producer receives and what the consumer pays. This is bad for both sides.
A few years ago there was an over-supply of cattle. The price went away down. That is the law of supply and demand. Part of the problem was that the government opened up the borders and allowed beef to come in from the United States, New Zealand and Argentina. The farmers did what they had to do. They sold their herds. They got rid of their cows and did not save their calves. What is happening now is a logical extension of that. There is now a shortage of beef in this country. The price is going up. I maintain that is because there is no planning in that industry as in other food industries, such as eggs.
It is necessary to increase our imports. Prices will go up even more. Most economists say we can expect higher beef prices for the next three or four years. Beef is not like poultry or even like hogs. You cannot get into and out of the cycle quickly. It takes a long time to build up a herd. Most cows have one calf a year.
The situation is not like that with chickens. The chicken in the supermarket freezer is probably only 60 or 70 days old. That is how quickly you can produce a chicken. If there is a shortage of chickens, you merely turn on the tap and in a matter of a few months you have remedied the problem. It is possible to regulate the supply. However, this cannot be done quickly with cattle. That is why we need more planning in that sector for both the farmer and the consumer.
I commend the hon. member for Athabasca for introducing this motion and giving us an opportunity to talk about the reasons why agriculture must be more viable. In the final analysis, it is the backbone of this country from coast to coast.
[ Translation]


Mr. Claude Tessier (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I am always very happy to participate in the debate on topics concerning agriculture, and particularly today when, first of all, the hon.
2896

February 5, 1979
Agriculture
member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) put the problem very positively and constructively; I want to congratulate him personally for that. I should also like to tell him that we on this side share his concerns; if unanimity can be achieved we may even be able to give our Canadian agricultural producers the income they need and are entitled to.
As for the viability of agriculture, Mr. Speaker, we can and must speak of it. That is why I congratulate the hon. member for having brought up the matter today; we are that much more concerned about the producer's income that at this time we have reason to express certain doubts about the conditions under which our producers operate; unfortunately, to speak of the viability of agriculture is too often to speak of the industry and forget the producer.
Firstly and importantly, the motion gives us an opportunity to make this House aware of the need to look at the farmer's real income instead of referring to figures and statistics that, because of increases, are very seldom relevant at the individual producer's level.
Second, the motion also provides us with an opportunity to refer both to the need for and dangers of marketing boards in the face of current difficulties. Third, the motion gives an opportunity to deal with the problems faced by young farmers, and this is of tremendous significance because our young farmers are now incapable of meeting today's challenge without support from the government and various farming organizations.
Fourth, this motion could also give us an opportunity to refer to a commitment, not only from this House in a non-partisan effort, but also from our partners at the farming industry level as a whole, because in agriculture perhaps more than in any other industry it is extremely important that everyone understand and assume his responsibilities when the time comes, so that we may collectively support our Canadian farming industry.
In the course of my remarks I will come back a number of times to the dairy policy, because I for one am somewhat disappointed that the dairy producer, usually small and old, apparently is a victim we are unable to protect within the prevailing system. It therefore seems important on the occasion of a motion on farming viability that we be able to address the dilemma we are now placed in by a mechanism that certainly is inadequate to ensure justice to all producers. The motion gives us an opportunity to recall and expose that situation once more, because small dairy producers in particular are victimized.
Mr. Speaker, I mean tampering with the quotas of some producers at the expense of other producers. We know that in 1976 unfair cuts resulted from this, but what becomes even more unfair is that this situation is perpetuated with the complicity of that system.
Mr. Speaker, I also wish to denounce something else, the fact that in some cases the regulations of some marketing boards are not adequate to protect individual producers efficiently. For instance, if you refer to our dairy policy, the family farm is too often threatened. Older producers are too often the victims of injustice and forced to give up when they worked most of their lives on the farm. Yet, Mr. Speaker, we know that those injustices are part of the system and that, unfortunately, the conflict of interest at the level of some officials and some producers themselves prevents anyone from attempting to correct the situation.
We asked many for the publication of milk quotas. Of course, as you know, it was always rejected. There is probably some valid reasons for this but some of them are still unknown and I hope that some day they will be given to us. I for one would be tempted to launch an inquiry on the distribution and administration of some dairy marketing boards and I hope that if those charges can be made it will give us an opportunity to throw light on this issue and to put an end to this injustice towards small and older producers that we must witness without being able to do anything.
Mr. Speaker, let me come back to the question of farming income. I do not think that in 1979 farm producers have a fair income. We should revise the system in recognizing, as a first priority, not the concerns of the industry but the producers' income. In fact, we are over-specializing agriculture at the expense of the small and the older producer. I do not think we have the right to do that because until the last few years Canadian agriculture has been based on our farmers who, through the force of circumstances, were small and who, quite naturally, have aged, but who are still entitled to keep on working in that sector of activity if they so wish.
Agriculture is no longer a business best left to experts and economists, a thing that is managed in backroom talks. It is first and foremost the farmer's business and he must be understood and compensated fairly with an adequate and even interesting income. As far as marketing boards are concerned,
I think that we and the majority of hon. members must acknowledge that they have a raison d'etre, that they are valuable instruments which we should endeavour to improve. But they should serve the consumer and the producer as well.
But it is time that their applicability to the various agricultural productions be recognized because I do not think that we should stabilize some sectors, which would become privileged agricultural sectors, while producers in other sectors must fight desperately to find a place in our economic system. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I believe we should set up marketing boards as quickly as possible for all types of productions, which will actually serve the interests of producers.
However, Mr. Speaker, the government must always bear in mind its responsibilities towards these boards. I would like, at this point, to examine our responsibilities regarding the

February 5, 1979

Canadian dairy policy. We are fully aware of the conflicts of interest and the bickering going on over the instruments of our dairy policy, however, the government has unfortunately delegated its responsibilities to certains bodies and by doing so has become powerless in the face of certain cases of injustice.
Third, viability is synonymous with continuity. Personally, that was my first objective when I started out in politics, to ensure continuity and a harmonious resurgence in agriculture with our young people who are capable, who can become competent and who have enough courage to hang on and bring agriculture in the modern era. Naturally I had to set this concern aside temporarily because we had to concentrate, and I think that it is still the case today, on establishing marketing boards and solving all the internal workings problem so that the boards could be operative and efficient. Modern agriculture is a business with modern rules which does not tolerate trial and error. It will never again be what it was, and that is an important thing to understand in order to respond appropriately. It must be allowed to become what it should be.
Fourth, we must recall what our responsibilities are and remember that as partners in the Canadian agricultural industry we have a role to play and that role must be played at the right time and in the right place. Thus each one of us has, in his own field, to review his own responsibilities, and each one of the partners must become more knowledgeable, more competent and no less responsible. Because the success of a farm business depends on the capacity of the partners to work together in the sense of farm economy and of the farmers' income, and at the same time to satisfy the consumers.
That is the new challenge of the day and of the near and more or less distant future.
A perfect illustration of the dilemma that I have put, as regards the income of marketing corporations and the respon-sibilites shared by the partners in the industry, is the national dairy policy, as we all know. And the last annual meeting of the dairy farmers of Canada showed us that on the whole the Canadian industry is doing well. But on the farms, everyday we meet producers who would need higher quotas and who frequently, in the past and even now, are penalized for overproduction. During that period prices for quotas went higher and higher. Three years ago you could buy quotas for $1.37 a hundred weight. Today you have to pay $14, $16, $20, $22 a hundredweight. I for one am prepared to ask the government to take back those responsibilities because it is responsible for the well-being of producers and individuals.
As far as the national dairy policy is concerned, regulations should be the same for everybody and the protection should be effective for all, provided however the protection of small producers is ensured and guaranteed first. The question is: Who can and must protect small producers under the present Canadian dairy policy? Who has that responsibility? Who has the necessary capabilities? The answer is quite simple but at the producer's level, as among people generally speaking, they
Agriculture
are not well informed. The solution, Mr. Speaker, lies in marketing boards or federations of producers. However, in Quebec only the Agricultural Producers' Union could require the federations of whole milk or industrial milk to do so as they are always facing conflicts of interest.
For its part, the federal government cannot do anything because it transferred that power and responsibility, I should say, to provincial agencies at their request. Certainly the Agricultural Producers' Union can do what it wants but for my part, I cannot let small producers disappear without trying to do everything I can or to ask the producers' union to agree to do so, something which I think is advisable for the APU and for producers, or ask the federal government to take upon itself to do so when it has abolished the supply management committee and to take control again probably by subsidy quotas.
So it is important to know who is in control and who is responsible for problems and for solutions and to know if we can hope to settle those problems. Time has come now for someone to say that recreation is over and to take the necessary measures. If it is impossible to do so willingly, that must be done forcibly, that is the government should intervene but only as a last resort. In other words, they should not try to do anything if issues are not definitely settled.
As a member who sees what happens in the milk sector, I want people to understand in what kind of situation any hon. member is placed. First it must be said that the administration and the distribution of quotas is the sole responsibility of the federations at the present time. It is a fact which should be recognized. The only responsibility of the federal government or of the Canadian Dairy Commission or of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is to define Canadian needs and tailor production to demand. As a matter of fact, it is up to the producers, or their representatives, or the supply management committee, or their own federation of whole or industrial milk, or by extension to the Agricultural Producers' Union to distribute the quotas among the farmers.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the House might give some consideration to a brief extension of this debate. There are at least four hon. members who would like to speak for five minutes or so each, just to round the debate out. I would appreciate the consent of hon. members opposite and of hon. members to my left for a brief extension, on the understanding that there will be no vote. That is over with now, but I would like other hon. members to have a chance to say a few words.
[ Translation]


Mr. Yves Caron (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to thank the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) for introducing this motion and giving us an opportunity to talk about agriculture
80047-42'/j

February 5, 1979
Health Resources Fund Act
as a whole. Of course, this debate is very important, and we also have something to say in the area of agriculture but because of the time of the House, we cannot accept to extend the debate because we already gave our point of view through the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Tessier).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At 6.01 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Miss Begin that Bill C-2, to amend the Health Resources Fund Act, be read the third time and do pass.
Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, the move to withdraw from participation in a program recognized as needed by both the federal and provincial jurisdictions reminds one of the land registration and identification program which was undertaken jointly by the Government of Canada and the maritime provinces. That program was evaluated by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the various provincial governments of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. They studied how land registration problems could be solved, and a program was undertaken. It was agreed each province could afford only so much money on a per annum basis. It was agreed the federal government only wanted to expend a certain fixed amount of money on a per annum basis.
The program was set down for ten years. The expertise and administration structures were assembled. The co-operation between federal and provincial authorities was effected, and the program was under way in a very progressive fashion. It would have placed the maritime provinces in a land registration program which was second to none. As a matter of fact, in the early years of its planning it was examined by several foreign jurisdictions which were somewhat in a bind and needed a comparable or new program.
As was the case in many other financial situations which the government pushed itself into, it chose to withdraw, to limit

the available funds, to constrict the program, and virtually to waste the initial years in which much value had been accumulated. If the program is to be completed, it will be completed by the provinces doing their work under a much retarded program during a period of time when the complete program was required.
In the field of health, again the federal government has failed to predict its capabilities. It has failed to estimate properly the amounts of money required for various programs, and to project them in budget fashion far enough ahead to obtain the correct expenditures in the correct years without a breach of promise. Like so many other things, this is breach of promise by a government which has put itself in its own bind.
One can recall the repeated speeches of all opposition parties in the House. They were critical of the government's failure to predict its requirements two years, three years, four years or five years ahead. The government would not put those requirements on the table. If it had put the requirements on the table five years ago and projected to this point in time, one would find that the provinces which share the cost would not be in the embarrassing positions in which they now find themselves. The provinces could have projected their requirements and spread the money out. It could have been done in a manner so that all provinces would have received the benefits of the programs under health and land registration services which are now being cut. This is another example of where the provinces are being used as the guinea pigs of politics by the government.
This afternoon we heard an answer in the House by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) in reply to a proper request pertaining to health. She indicated that we should speak to our provincial ministers of health, as if there was no responsibility of the Government of Canada in a cost-shared program. That is not the case, because the guidelines are laid down. If a province is not operating as the federal government wishes it to, then the federal government lowers the boom and withdraws money. But when a province wants out, then the Minister of National Health and Welfare says, "Speak to your provincial minister." It is an iniquitous transfer of political responsibility to others who have no control over the situation.
When the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Buchanan) pulls the puckering string on the purse, the money no longer goes to the provinces, and the provinces must answer to the people. They are the ones who receive the direct blame. It does not make any difference whether it is Ontario or New Brunswick; it constricts provincial programs and planning. This is not in line with any program which is intended to create a unified Canada. It is a continuous confrontation with one provincial minister after another because of the retraction of a position which was in place. It is a reflection upon the absolute need for long-term planning and commitment which Canada can recognize as a promise to be fulfilled and not withdrawn.
If we were to look for promises which have been withdrawn,
I suppose we would not have to go very far. We could go back to the Department of Transport release of last week. We would
February 5, 1979

see that while money is being withdrawn from health programs, the government recognizes the political requirements of certain ports in the country and has promised Newfoundlanders a synchrolift in St. John's, for the second time. I wonder if they will get a synchrolift. It was promised in the past, and obviously it is an election promise at this time. It is a promise made by a government which already has broken two promises.


An hon. Member:: We never did.


Fred Alward McCain: The government did. It broke the land registration promise, it broke the contract. It has broken the contract on these health plans which come under the act. Also the government has broken its promise of a synchrolift for Newfoundland. I imagine the announcements of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) will be looked at with a very sharp magnifying glass to see if a cheque has been issued, if it is in hand, and if the synchrolift has been ordered. They will be looked at because Newfoundlanders will remember how the government cut back on health services.
There is a great deal to be accomplished in health. I cannot hope to compete with the medical group who have spoken on this matter, such as the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) and others. As a member from a small town, I understand the difficulties small communities have in obtaining doctors. At this point in time it is ill-advised for the government to withdraw anything from the health program because such action further discourages doctors to move into some of the smaller communities. It puts the facilities the program would have bought farther away from those small villages than they otherwise would have been.
The program was undertaken with the idea of first building the most important health centres in the provinces concerned. As soon as the major centres were served, then it was planned to look at the outlying ones. This was not because health care was any less important in more distant points. It was because it was imperative that the capability be in place, province by province, and extended as fast as possible to as many communities as possible. The maritime provinces are faced with an uncompleted program, one which must be completed in due time but at a slower rate than otherwise planned. Once again smaller communities around the country will find it more difficult as time goes on, because of the slowdown in the supply of services which they so badly require to look after their health needs.
Perhaps this is the price of federal mismanagement which is being paid by the communities and provinces of Canada. It was a poor estimate of the general cost of government down the line. It is another example of the government's effort at so-called austerity. It is coupled with the withdrawal of moneys from Indian health services and the proposal to reduce payments for hospitals and medicare. It is a high profile program of federal government expenditure. It is intended to illustrate to Canadians as a whole that they may not want federal government austerity. The emphasis placed by austerity on health research in general indicates that the government
Health Resources Fund Act
is looking for complaints from the public about austerity and trying to say, "There, I told you the people do not want austerity after all. They do not want it at all, they only think they want austerity." That is far from the truth.
We have a program which is being cancelled two years before its proper date, and it is being cancelled without prior consultation with the ministers of health in the provinces concerned. As I said earlier in my remarks, it has been cancelled without any assurance or firm commitment that the projects presently under way will in fact get the money which the provinces thought was committed because this little bird was cut off so close behind the ears even the payments which are committed are not assured to the ministers.
There is no question but that the provinces concerned will have to proceed with the programs which were intended; the buildings, the facilities, and care services, because the provinces in good faith have extended the assurance to these various communities that in year one, two, or three, the facilities they require will be built in co-operation with the federal government. These statements have been made by the provinces in Canada, but now the provinces will have to go back and say that because of the withdrawal of federal funds they will have to move these projects down to year one plus one, year two plus two, and year three plus three. They will apologize, but follow up by saying that this is not too far away. This is a transfer of political liability, political responsibility and political blame, not just to New Brunswick, but to every province in Canada that was trying to improve its extended care and educational facilities in the health field.
We have to look at this from a national point of view and on a national basis. I have tried to do that. I will admit that it is my resonsibility to represent New Brunswick, and I do that to the best of my ability, but not without having a conception in respect of the national impact of all these things.
What this means is that Campbellton will be a little later in getting the facilities which the province of New Brunswick had planned for that city; that Edmundston will be a little later than it had planned in receiving its facilities and services; and that the city of Saint John in the province of New Brunswick will not know whether the federal government's commitments will be kept for the construction of facilities and services already planned with moneys already committed by the provincial treasurer. In this case I happen to know whereof I speak, and I am sure that such a situation is not unique to one province in Canada as this applies on a national basis.
No one is any more anxious than I to see this government cut down on its expenditures, but what I want to see from this government is one single, really sincere effort to cut a low profile item rather than a high profile one, proving to this nation that austerity is its objective, rather than proving to Canada that austerity is unacceptable, which is its present objective. This is totally unacceptable as a program of government under any guise.

February 5, 1979
Health Resources Fund Act


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take part in the debate on Bill C-2. Even though it looks quite weak and simplistic, this bill holds some unpleasant surprises in the general area of public health care. Mr. Speaker, the health resources fund, which was created in 1966, will normally be of use to public health care for another two years. However, this government has gotten into the habit in a time of peace and abundance, or at least of so-called abundance, to hack away at expenditures. Unfortunately, it does not cut back on extravagant or useless expenditures, it prefers to cut back on useful and essential expenditures, especially as concerns health care for the Canadian population.
Health is a great gift, Mr. Speaker. It is the greatest of gifts for all mankind. We jealously protect the health of animals and ecological systems, but unfortunately, when it comes to the health of our fellow citizens, we have a tendency to put health aside to save money. Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, this has become a real paranoia because certain programs which are well-designed and essential for our welfare will suffer.
The Minister believes that the health resources fund, which was created to provide assistance to the laboratories and the necessary facilities to train medical and health care personnel, must be abolished. In her wisdom, she has thought up this idea. Already, in the sixties, it had become necessary to improve all health services and their availability. Indeed, this has always been necessary. The government had taken the leadership in this field by establishing new health insurance and hospital insurance plans. But today, it no longer wants this leadership. It is unfortunate that it will finally be the provinces who will be the victims of these drastic measures.
Of course, I agree with the minister that the situation has considerably improved in the field of health care, especially as concerns medical personnel. We have today a satisfying number of physicians, a good number of new graduates, but a number of them must now expatriate south of the border. We also have a surplus of nursing workers, human resources are there and the health resources fund has helped in various ways to develop that qualified personnel. However, all is not completed in the health care area.
An area which has been much forgotten is the one related to hospital administrators who have become needed because of the nature and complexity of the problems in health institutions. We must therefore develop efficient administrators for the smooth running of hospitals and to reduce some of the wastes occurring there. The work climate in certain hospitals is unbelievable or unbearable, which lead to the downgrading of health care. There are conflicts between medical and administrative personnel, lack of planning and in certain instances lack of discipline.
All that to say that the training of administrative personnel was neglected relative to the training of medical and nursing
personnel. The objectives of the health resources fund program must not be forgotten but redirected to meet new needs. At a time when the provinces must support an increase in part the whole financial burden of social and health services the federal government drops them without much consultation. I do not want to address those criticisms directly to the minister of course who, unfortunately, must abide by the decisions of cabinet on the spending cuts.
So there are areas for which we must do less and others for which we must do more. That is why I think those funds should not be cut but redirected to more urgent areas. One area I feel particularly strong about is that of preventive medicine, particularly in remote areas. Indeed, millions of dollars could be saved if we had personnel assigned to disease prevention. And how could one forget medical research.
In the very words of the minister in the debate last Thursday, over $100 million were assigned to research institutions through the health resources fund. Medical research is not only necessary but primordial in industrialized countries like ours. We know that federal contributions to research institutions have been cut somewhat for quite some time now. We even had examples of that in the area of fisheries and forestry.
Scientific research which requires considerable investments in technology and qualified personnel must nevertheless have all the necessary financial security so research projects will not be interrupted before they are completed. There can be no talk of restrictions when it comes to the health of people. No, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the most precious asset of a people,
I do not think it should be a question of dollar signs. I am in favour of eliminating as much useless spending as possible but I will not be convinced that necessary programs should suffer unfairly from that epidemic of budget cuts. We must be careful. We might be criticized by future generations for having failed to make the necessary investments, to wit in essential areas such as those dealing with health care. We are gathered here to provide a better fate to all Canadians and we must not forget it. A well-known maxim says that health is priceless.
When I consider Bill C-2, it is not so much its contents which concern me but rather the fact that it is gathering weight and that we are told that other cuts will soon be made in the health area. Indeed it has already happened in the case of Indians. They did not appreciate the cuts suggested in their health scheme. They are therefore the most deprived in that connection. We only have to remember the mercury poisoning cases and still recently the high rate of tuberculosis cases which have been detected.
In conclusion Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I do not like cuts in the health field. I would rather have a more rational administration of health services so that each Canadian may be provided with every service available and enjoy his most precious asset, his health.

February 5, 1979


Mr. Ross Milne (Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, when this bill originally came up for debate, I had not intended to participate, but as the debate began to develop I began to feel that I wanted to participate briefly because I became concerned that it was a continuation of the line of debate put forward by the official opposition in which they try to be all things to all people. In the preceding months the opposition have been preaching restraint, but they have since concluded that that is wrong, and now they want a much larger program of deficit spending.
In this case, however, where the government, as a result of examining programs to determine if the money being spent is being spent wisely, has decided to discontinue a program, the opposition takes the opposite position, that it is creating undue hardship. Surely the hon. members for Rosedale (Mr. Crom-bie), Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) and York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) have come to appreciate over the last few days that it sometimes hurts being on both sides of the fence and hitting the fence posts.
Specifically, I wanted to rise tonight because I had the privilege of-


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Referenda.


William Ross Milne: I see by tonight's press that the opposition is on both sides of that issue as well. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) has said that they probably would not rule out a referendum if the case called for it. I think that the hon. member should read what his colleague has been saying before he makes comments like that.
With regard to the bill, I wanted to make a few comments because I once had the privilege of serving as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. There have been a number of remarks made inside and outside this House by members opposite to the effect that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) and the Minister of Indian Affairs (Mr. Faulkner) were greatly cramping the health care extended to Indians. First of all, I thought it was unique that the opposition would debate this issue in association with this bill simply because this bill deals with the health resources fund, a program jointly shared by the federal government and the provinces in order to build health training facilities. It seems to be acceptable, however, in this debate to offer an opinion on almost any aspect of health care, no matter what it is, so I thought I would take this opportunity to respond to some of the comments which have been made about issues regarding native people.
If hon. members would review Hansard they would find questions and statements made to the Minister of National Health and Welfare which could give Canadians the idea that somehow the government was jeopardizing the lives of native people, that it was promoting suicide amongst them, and that it was causing undue hardship to them in terms of health care
Health Resources Fund Act
by depriving them of a basic service which all Canadians have a right to expect. I would like to clarify the record and indicate that the government, and I am sure this parliament as well, are not at all happy with the level of health among our native people and that we want it to be much better. This is certainly not the situation indicated by some of the members opposite.
In terms of infant mortality, in 1960 there were approximately 79 deaths per 1,000 live births. In 1976 the number decreased to 32.5 for native people. The comparative figures for the white population were 27 in 1960 and 14.3 in 1975 per 1,000. It is interesting to note that in the outlying and remote areas of Canada the rates are just about the same for both white people and native people. The death rate for Indians is almost the same, and their life expectancy is not much different. While there is room for improvement on these figures, I would like to indicate that the situation is certainly not as bad as members opposite have indicated.
I would like to comment on the guidelines the Minister of National Health and Welfare announced some time ago which have been the subject of questions and debate in the House and, indeed, were the prompting of a meeting between the minister, the National Indian Brotherhood and a number of Indian leaders. It was indicated by members opposite that somehow there had been a gearing down in health services offered to native people in Canada. That is not true. Surely members opposite know that primary health and hospital care are provided to the native people through the same medicare programs which are provided for non-native people across Canada.
In cases where there is hardship, as for example on reserves where there is no economic base, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and, more specifically, the Department of National Health and Welfare, have spent a good of deal of money to increase their services and support to the program through hospitals, nursing stations, staffing of health care centres and through funds given directly to them.
The guidelines apply to the kinds of expenditures that are not covered, or what would be known as primary health care and hospital care situations, including eye glasses, dentures, prescription drugs and medical transportation services. I should like to put on the record the five things to which those guidelines referred: elective ground transportation by cars and taxis; elective dental care; supply of glasses, especially items such as special frames and tinting unless they were medically indicated; supply of non-prescription pharmaceuticals such as aspirins, tooth paste and hair shampoo. Individual Indians with incomes which are substantially greater than the provincial welfare limit are being asked to contribute to the cost of some of these items of health care as is the situation in the non-native community.
I think hon. members opposite should appreciate that it is incumbent upon the government to analyze these programs from time to time and, if there is waste, and if the administration is such that it is impossible to be sure the money is being well spent, then look at the guidelines. If the expenditure is not

February 5, 1979
Health Resources Fund Act
necessary, surely that indicates the money will be subtracted from the basic health care. I am sure my colleagues would join me in arguing that discretionary health care expenditure should be as low as possible so that more money is available for the core activities that the native people need, deserve, and should have available to them. I think the debate in the House has revealed there are many situations that really do not relate to the basic health care but which are causing some problems in the native communities.
I do not share all the views of the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith), but I think he had a valid point today when he referred to some of the problems in regard to native housing. He used the example of an extremely cold house with a high humidity level, and pointed out that if it was sealed and insulated heavily to conserve heat, that may not be the most healthy situation. I would suggest, however, that many of the native problems are related to water supply and sewage, but these are not the kinds of things covered in Bill C-2. Hon. members opposite must know, if they have read the bill, that those are not the things that are indicated.
This afternoon the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) made a good speech and pointed out the advantages of a good lifestyle and how it could help improve health and thus decrease the cost of hospitalization and medical care. His point was well taken.
When the hon. member for Churchill spoke, he was very critical of the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) (Mrs. Campagnolo) for contributing to amateur sport. His argument was that the money should be going to health care. Surely if the minister's department is making contributions to a better lifestyle for a generation of Canadians, that will reduce their dependency on health care facilities. Is this not a better approach than funding programs that may or may not be essential for basic health care?
When the Minister of National Health and Welfare met with Indian leaders to discuss this subject, she told them that her department will be most willing to review any cases of individual hardship reported to it. I understand from her parliamentary secretary that to date no cases have been drawn to the department's attention.
The minister was careful to point out to the Indian community that an appeal procedure was contained in the guidelines which could be followed by anyone who felt they were unduly harsh. Also, in order to set aside any of the basic concerns in the native community, the minister agreed to delay implementation of the guidelines for a six-month period. This was conditional upon there being consultation at the band council level with local officials of her department and of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The discussion would then advance to the regional level and, as it matured to the national level the National Indian Brotherhood would be involved and, I suspect also, the cabinet committee. This consultative process should be productive in this case as well as on other issues affecting the native people, the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The minister went further and agreed to fund the process. If any case of hardship is drawn to the attention of either department, hon. members opposite can be assured it will be dealt with. If the native people have genuine concerns, the consultative process has been established and is financed by the government.
Another point is the recognition that it is not either a treaty or aboriginal right to provide the kind of health care about which we have been talking. It is just the social policy of this government that has been supported by virtually every member of this and preceding parliaments that have wanted native people to have good health care and were prepared to make sure that the funding is available. In view of the debate that has taken place both inside and outside this House, Mr. Speaker, I just want to comment that this is not a new policy. It relates to the expenditure of money for ground transportation, cars, taxis, dental care that the individual likes to take on his own, the supply of glasses, tinted glasses, special frames, non-prescribed drugs, tooth paste, hair shampoo, aspirin, and also the requirement of asking individuals-be they native people-to pay if they can afford to, as is the case in the white communities.
I think both the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development have done a commendable job of affording facilities to native people. Medical care and hospitalization are not affected, nor are essential or emergency services such as ambulance, air evacuation, supply of essential drugs or emergency dental care.
Not long ago I was in the far north, Mr. Speaker. The plane I was returning on was stopped and we were asked for eight volunteers to give up their seats so that a native person who had suffered a serious heart attack and another who required major surgery could be flown south to the best hospitals in Canada. It is a well established policy that natives in the outlying communities are flown to Yellowknife or Whitehorse, and if the medical attention and facilities there are not adequate they are then flown to Edmonton or Montreal, or wherever the facilities exist for them to have the same kind of medical attention that is available to any of us in this House.
The hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) inferred that the budget has been drastically cut and therefore is extremely unfair to the natives. That statement ignores the fact that the budget has been increased in this area. The total Indian health activity cost for salary and operating has been increased 13 per cent from the year 1977-78 to 1978-79. I wish to put on record the actual numbers. In 1977-78 it was increased from $78,188,000 to $88,677,000, an increase of some 13 per cent.
In the non-insured services to all Indians, in 1974-75 the department spent approximately $17.5 million. That was increased in the year 1975-76 to $2214 million, an increase of 27 per cent. In 1976-77 it was increased to $24million, a further 10 per cent increase. In the year 1977-78 it was

February 5, 1979

increased to $27.4 million, a further 12 per cent. In the budget year 1978-79 the total is $30 million, a further 10 per cent increase.
In terms of the government's commitment to adequate funding for medical care and facilities for native people, there can be no question that even with the over-all government policy of restraint this budget item has been substantially increased in the last five budget years, ranging anywhere from 10 per cent to 27 per cent.
I wish to speak to the hon. member's last point in connection with the guidelines. He stated that individual Indians with incomes substantially greater than the provincial welfare limit would be asked to defray some of the costs themselves. That is a standard situation across Canada. People well know that those items not covered in a province under the basic health care plan must be paid for by the individual. If they are in a situation where they are elderly, have a very limited income or a disability and are unable to earn income, there are provincial programs that will assist them. In the case of native people, there are federal assistance programs. In those areas where there is no economic base for the native people to earn income, assistance is available.
There are a number of native people who have very substantial incomes. In terms of trying to maximize the health care provided with the $30 million that has been budgeted, it seems only right that those who have the ability could and should pay. Most of the money should go to assist those who genuinely need it.
In conclusion, I again say that I appreciate the opportunity to enter this debate. I wanted to clarify for those who have been alarmed that somehow the government is cutting back on health care services to Canada's native people that the opposite is the case. In spite of restraint this year, the budget has been increased by 10 per cent. The guidelines only address themselves to discretionary spending in the health care area, asking that that be looked at a second time and to verify or authorize before expenditures are made. They ask that native people who can afford those items be asked to pay for them. I would be very surprised if many Indian leaders argued with that point. In adjusting its social programs, the government is trying to direct more money to where the need is greatest and perhaps not as much to where the need is not so evident. With those remarks, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to participate.


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, we have heard a great deal of debate on this bill which is very loosely related to the provisions of the bill itself. In fact we have heard from the government side a self-congratulating account of how it first came to invade the field of health care in the 1960s, forcing reluctant provinces into cost sharing programs on which it has since unilaterally welched. Speakers on the government side, of course, have taken the strange tack of praising themselves for the good work they did in setting up these health care programs, when in fact the whole substance of this bill has to do with knocking down the health resources program. Members on the government side might benefit from
Health Resources Fund Act
reading the bill again. It is only one paragraph long in its essential part. All it says is that the government is backing out of its commitment to the provinces two years early.
Three years ago I had occasion to join in debate on another bill in which the government was backing out of another aspect of its commitment to the provinces. In the mid-1960s the government held out a financial carrot to the provinces to force them into cost-sharing medicare programs. Provincial health ministers could see then that the carrot was rotten, but since the federal government had drawn to itself so much control over government spending and over programs that belong in provincial jurisdiction, the only alternative was to accept this rotten carrot or to be denied funds that were being offered to other provinces.
The result of joining these cost sharing programs was that the provinces became involved in increasingly costly programs whose costs have been escalating through the 1970s to dizzying heights. Ontario had already embarked upon a health care program that suited its own needs as a province. The Liberal government in Ottawa put it in a position of having to opt for the shared program put forward by the federal government, and it has been saddled with that program since.
I do not suggest for a moment that health costs have risen only because the federal government is involved in them. Costs have risen in almost any direction we care to look in the service industries. On the other hand, the pace at which costs escalate can be controlled in certain ways. If the provinces had been left free to find their own solutions to the escalation in health care costs, they might well have been saved from the problems they find themselves faced with when the federal government, finding the heat in the kitchen too much for it, decides to quit and suddenly abandons the programs into which it had forced the provinces.
Medicare costs are not the direct issue in this present bill, but they provide the means of getting at the principle underlying the bill. The government is doing the same thing it did three years ago when it decided unilaterally to throttle the cost-shared program commitment it had made with the provinces. At that time, finding that it was spending more than it wanted to be involved in spending, it simply sat down and said in effect, "We don't like the terms of the agreement any more; we're going to cut back on it." Now, once again, it is doing the same thing with a program it set up with the provinces.
Three years ago when the government decided to renege on its medicare commitments, I said, thinking of my own province of Ontario, "We knew at the outset that the provincial medical care program was superior to the federal program that we were asked to join. We also knew what we were dealing with in this case. There was no way we could be sure that the federal government would honour this agreement. We, like the other provinces, knew that this government's record of keeping its word was hardly conducive to placing very much faith in this particular federal-provincial agreement." Well, Mr. Speaker, sadly but predictably, I say the same thing again today about the program which is being thrown out in the present bill.

February 5, 1979
Health Resources Fund Act
The principle involved here, Mr. Speaker, is the principle of good faith. A government that bargains in good faith does not commit itself to particular levels of spending for particular periods of time and then, without consultation and agreement, announce a change of heart. In the previous bill three years ago, the government pleaded that health costs were rocketing out of control. It couldn't stand the heat. It wanted out. Well, this time the government cannot use that excuse, Mr. Speaker, because it sponsored the program which is being scuttled in this bill, a program to increase the health care training facilities in Canada and committed to it an amount of $500 million. Now, having decided that the way to save its own neck is to cut back on spending, it has found this program and has discovered that by chopping it, it can announce a saving of $84 million.
The costs of this program can certainly not be said to have rocketed out of control. The funds were voted for it back in the mid 1960s-$500 million to be spent over a 15-year period. As other speakers have pointed out, those dollars have shrunk mightily by today's standards. Accordingly, inflation has already taken a great toll on the program's funding. Now, two years before it had said the program would end, the federal government wants to end it, dealing yet another blow to the building up of health care facilities across Canada.
There are two ways of looking at the principle underlying the bill, Mr. Speaker. There is the way suggested by the minister when she introduced it. She told us the program had already been 83 per cent spent and had therefore accomplished many of its purposes. Accordingly, she regards it as an easy program from which to steal, to make up the budget cuts to which the government is committed. But there is another way of viewing the principle underlying the bill. It is that the government, seeing itself in disfavour with the electorate throughout the country and realizing that its wild spending habits over the past few years have landed the country in enormous trouble, is looking for a way to save its skin. It has sifted through its programs looking for ways to appear to save money without losing too many votes. Looked at in these terms, this bill has very little to do with good government and a lot to do with this government as it tries to save its own skin.
If the program was good in its conception, then the government should have the courage to maintain its level of funding, especially considering how much more cheaply the government comes by this amount of money these days. Even if it were a flawed program, unilateral decisions to cut off bilateral agreements are far from civilized. They are so close to the law of the jungle that no government which cares to keep good faith with its electorate would ever be guilty of them.
When the Trudeau government suddenly cut the funding of its shared-cost medical aid program three years ago, we in Ontario were faced with the threat of hospital closings in many communities. Now, once again in Ontario we are faced with the possibility that a new fee may be levied on chronic care patients who stay in hospital more than 60 days. There are no easy solutions to the problems of cost in such social programs

as these, Mr. Speaker. For that reason, governments must work all the harder to make sure their programs are intelligently conceived and responsibly carried out. How can the provinces plan long-term programs if they are bound to the federal government in a shotgun marriage which always threatens a sudden divorce? How can Ontario-to refer again to my own province-maintain the level of health care it had planned for its citizens if the federal government keeps twisting in the wind? Why did the Liberal government railroad the provinces into these shared-cost programs at all if it has the gall later to leave them hanging?
One fact is obvious. When the federal government leaves a provincial government in the lurch these days, it is never a Liberal government which is affected. The voters have seen to that. And perhaps that is why the Trudeau government has the gall to practice cost-cutting in this way. It forces the provincial governments to cut back on services and the provincial governments, except for the one in Prince Edward Island which will probably not be there long, are not Liberal. Perhaps the Trudeau government hopes, in this way, to stir the anger of the electorate against other parties. But people have lived with this government long enough not to be fooled.
When a user fee becomes necessary for long-term hospital patients in Ontario, the voters of that province will know that it is a Trudeau fee they are being asked to pay. It is a fee for having a Prime Minister in Ottawa who reneges on commitments. In provinces like Ontario the voters are already anxiously waiting for the Trudeau government to get out of the kitchen. The government cannot keep its promises, and the deceptiveness coming out of the goverment kitchen is no longer acceptable to the people.
In terms of the Ministry of National Health and Welfare specifically, the country is already aware of the many aspects of bad administration that prevent programs from operating smoothly and efficiently. Last night we saw a confused health minister appearing on television after the late news to explain the unexplainable to us in terms of the child tax credit. Mothers who have never been asked to fill out income tax forms before are now required to jump through a bureaucratic hoop that even the minister didn't seem to understand. Similarly, many will also have to apply for a social insurance number. And senior citizens who are accustomed to filing their tax forms early in the hope of receiving an early tax rebate must suffer the very considerable inconvenience of waiting in line to get their T-4 slips at the end of February, whilst the minister of health tries to work her way through the jungle of her own red tape.
If the provinces had been given warning that the government was reneging on its commitment, Mr. Speaker, we might have been able to take comfort from the fact that at least the minister of health was giving up trying to run one program. Shortly we shall be able to take comfort from the fact that she won't be running anything. In the meantime, we are faced with the bill before us, which leaves the provinces in the lurch and gives the government an opportunity to say it has saved money.
February 5, 1979

As other speakers have pointed out, every dollar spent improving medical research and extending health training, especially in preventive medicine, saves many dollars in later health care costs. If we are to have truly effective health care, then some of the money which the federal government is saving will no doubt have to be spent by the provinces. What we are faced with in this bill is one more piece of face-saving legislation by a worn-out government.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak on this bill, primarily because of what it reveals about the way in which the government is dealing with its own understanding of restraint. The minister has indicated that the program we have had since 1966 has been a good program. I think all members of this House have agreed that it has been good and useful in a number of ways. According to her own words, the minister has reluctantly come to the conclusion that because of the need for restraint it is necessary to cut the remaining funds under the program, 83 per cent having been spent. It seems to me that there are three or four things that this reveals about the way the government is going about its business in this matter.
First let me deal with the question of research and development. I think it was June 1 of last year when the government indicated that it wished to re-establish its credentials and become enthusiastic about a policy for stimulating research and development, particularly in the fields of science and technological growth. That was the way the government wished to proceed from then on in. What we see with this bill today is another example of the difference between words and reality. I would like to cite a few statistics with respect to the government's commitment to research and development, and many more could be gathered.
The government has cut out S8.5 million from the support of science in the Department of Agriculture. The government has cut funding of $3 million from the extension to the Lethbridge research laboratory, $2.8 million in contributions toward construction of veterinary colleges, $2.7 million from the Canadian Dairy Commission for product research and promotion programs, $.8 million in grants to universities for water resources research, $1.4 million from the Alberta Oil Sands environment research program, $700,000 from stratospheric research, $2.7 million from the pollution abatement technology program, $2.8 million from the Newfoundland environment centre and maritime forest research centre and $11.1 million from the Department of Fisheries.
There are many examples outside the field of medical research where, over the years, we have seen a continuing cutting away from research and development funds, particularly in the fields of science and technological growth.
It is worth while pointing out that the Medical Research Council is responsible for approximately half of all the biomedical research funding in Canada. Let us look at the record in terms of the government's commitment to research and development in that field. In terms of the total budget of
Health Resources Fund Act
the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Medical Research Council's budget has fallen from 1.33 per cent in 1971 to 1.3 per cent in 1972, to 1.14 per cent in 1973, to .87 per cent in 1974, and currently it is batting about .6 per cent. I think that should be underlined because it is a reduction, in the short space of seven years, by two thirds in the field of medical research as it pertains to the ability of the Medical Research Council to obtain funds from the minister's department. That is not a policy of stimulating research and development. That is a policy of constantly cutting back, and it is very much a false economy.
There are a number of reasons why research and development, particularly in the medical field, are important, not the least of which is to remember that the end product of research is prevention. Research is designed to prevent the occurrence of disease and ill health. It seems to me that it is significant that where we might understand restraint in all other forms of industry, enterprise or business, the government fails to understand it when it comes to medical research. The importance of long-term research is that it diminishes the cost of health care. Therefore, to cut off funds at the research and development stage is indeed a false economy. However, it is not something which does not affect people. It affects people very directly because it affects them with regard to something which ultimately matters to them most, that is, their health.
It appears to me, particularly in the last ten years, that when it comes to the crunch and when it comes to cutting out funds, we always make sure that we cut off our future. This government is saying that in the name of restraint it is going to have to cut medical research, which will have the effect of establishing new procedures and new technology with respect to preventing ill health and with respect to providing health care for those who suffer from ill health.
Perhaps it is even more significant, but in an entirely different direction, that when we cut off research programs, particularly in fields which are scientifically sophisticated, we lose not only what we might have gained from research, but we also lose researchers. This country has seen generation after generation of people having to go either to the south, over to Europe, or somewhere else, because the sorry history of this country, especially under this government, has been not to put dollars into improving our future, particularly as that relates to health care.
That is something which is difficult to measure because we cannot measure how many good medical researchers and how many good medical teams are broken up when funds are cut off. This does not mean that we will not finally have the technology. It does not mean that we will not finally enjoy the fruits of that research. We will, as we always have, import it from other countries which are getting information and knowledge from Canadians who have left Canada because they have to go elsewhere to find facilities with which to do their research. That, in miniature, is the way this government deals with the question of research and development. Despite protestations about wanting to stimulate research and development,

February 5, 1979
Health Resources Fund Act
both inside and outside medical research the government has followed a policy of diminishing them.
The second thing which is revealed about the government is its total insensitivity to the significance of making sure that important programs which affect provinces are undertaken after consultation. This is a matter which many hon. members have raised. It has been raised with regard to almost every program the government has decided either to stop or start. It takes no great intelligence to remember that other governments-not just the federal government-require predictability. Indeed, those who are served and affected by programs also need predictability. That is particularly so in the field of research. We cannot just start and stop research programs. This is even more important in the medical field.
When this matter was before the House at second reading, I understand that some minister indicated that there was no contract or agreement signed and sealed with the provinces. However, whether there was a signed and sealed contract which would be enforceable in a court of law is not the point. Surely when a province made an agreement with the federal government 13 years ago, it expected the program would last the length of time it was supposed to last and, indeed, it might perhaps have been in the interests of medical research, the provinces and the people, if the program were to last longer. It is not a question of legally enforceable contracts; it is a question of trust. Again this government finds itself not worrying or caring whether programs will adversely affect the provinces or, indeed, the people.
There is a third aspect which I think should have been brought to the attention of the minister. Much research in this country is done by voluntary organizations. If the government was going to cut the program two years before the end of its natural life, it might at least have tried to find out if certain voluntary organizations could take over some aspects of the program, given the existing funding commitments, in order that the program would not be affected or cut sharply. The federal government has not been able to come to grips with coping with voluntary organizations as it goes through its program of restraint. [DOT]
Merely because the government decides not to carry out a program does not mean the need dies. When those government services are withdrawn, surely it is incumbent upon the government to see whether there are voluntary organizations to take up the slack. Indeed it is possible that there will be some funding, but not nearly as much as the government had pledged under this particular program. I might emphasize perhaps that is more important in the field of geriatric services. The government is on record, in a speech by the minister, on caring about the needs of the aged in our society. I believe the minister referred to a new deal for the aged. At least she is sincere in her view. The fact of the matter is that there has been absolutely no attempt by the government to find ways for voluntary organizations to assist Canadians, as it

withdraws funds and cuts services and programs which affect a great many people.
Also it is worthy of note that the government has seen fit to withdraw funds from programs which will affect both directly and ultimately those people who are least able to cope for themselves. Everyone who has any experience at all at the receiving end knows that when teaching and training facilities are cut, particularly in the health care field, the services most affected are those to people who are old, poor and handicapped. Those are the funds which go first.
I do not think there is a member on the government side who would step forward and say, "We would like to reduce training services for people being trained to help handicapped people." Government members will not say that. They do not wish to say that, but that is what they are doing. In the final analysis the poor, old and handicapped are not defeated by a direct assault. It is an entire series of subtle withdrawals of programs which were in place to help them out. These programs are slowly eroded away by what used to be called the old trickle down theory. By and large what happens is that the people who would ordinarily be taking courses and learning skills, particularly in health care training, will not be given the necessary funds. Therefore the services which will go are those such as home care, meals on wheels, and others. Slowly they are worn away, they are eroded. Thus, the ultimate effect of this cut will be borne by those who can least afford it.
I was pleased to participate in the discussion of the bill before the House for the following reasons: first, although 83 per cent of the program has been delivered, as it were, and although the minister can argue that by and large the objectives have been reached, anybody who wants to listen will realize that, despite what the government says, it does not stand for stimulating research and development programs. Its record is entirely in the opposite direction. Second, it continues to create divisions in the country by not dealing in an appropriate manner with the mechanism of consultation with the provinces. Third, it seems to have lost its understanding of the significance and importance of voluntary organizations which would be happy to be in this business if the government withdrew. Fourth, it is easier to withdraw funding for programs which affect those people who cannot speak loud enough to be heard. For those reasons, the bill does not deserve the support of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for St. John's West.


James Aloysius McGrath: St. John's East, Mr. Speaker. "East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet."


An hon. Member:: Filibuster.


James Aloysius McGrath: The hon. member says "filibuster". If ever there was a case to be made for a parliamentary filibuster on a bill, a case could be made for this one.
February 5, 1979


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: I welcome the suggestion of the hon. member that this is a deliberate filibuster. If what I say during third reading of this bill stimulates others to speak, and perhaps in the process succeeds in getting the government to change its mind on this breach of faith, then it will have been a worthwhile filibuster. That is what we are dealing with, a breach of faith on the part of the government.
It is worth noting throughout third reading of this bill that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) has been conspicuous by her absence. I sat through the debate on Friday and the minister and her parliamentary secretary were not in their places. I sat through the debate today and this evening, and the Minister of National Health and Welfare and her parliamentary secretary are still conspicuously absent.


An hon. Member:: They really do not care.


James Aloysius McGrath: They really do not care. The hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) made an outstanding contribution to this debate. He has provided outstanding leadership in this field. He has sat throughout the entire debate and heard contributions from all sides of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: I wonder if the minister's absence in some way could not be construed as her inability to defend this indefensible bill. Perhaps it is possible the government wanted to keep the minister out of the House because it was somewhat concerned that, if she stayed here, she might stimulate the debate in her provocative way. I hope I can be somewhat provocative and even stimulate some hon. members opposite to rise and defend this bill.
I think it is to the outstanding credit of the ministers who are here tonight, but I think the point has to be made that we have four ministers in the House tonight, the Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell), the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. De Bane), the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Buchanan), the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald), and so also is the Minister of State (Multicultural-ism) (Mr. Cafik). But the minister who is responsible for this bill is not here. Perhaps the reason she is not here is that she would be called upon to account for the fact that over the weekend her colleague, the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mrs. Campagnolo), announced a program whereby the Government of Canada was somehow going to find $18 million to fund arenas in four of the major centres in this country for the National Hockey League.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: That is restraint for you.


James Aloysius McGrath: Yet we cannot find the extra $84 million to complete our solemn undertaking made to the provinces 13 years ago when we passed this bill.


An hon. Member:: Unbelievable.
Health Resources Fund Act


James Aloysius McGrath: Where does the $18 million come from to provide these arenas in the impoverished city of Edmonton, the impoverished city of Winnipeg, the impoverished city of Hamilton, and the impoverished city of Quebec? I do not begrudge whatever Hamilton gets and whatever they deserve, but all I say to you, sir, is that this government has a strange and misguided sense of priorities. They have their priorities all mixed up.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: They are Progressive Conservative.


James Aloysius McGrath: I have listened to the hon. member from Saskatchewan and I heard-


Walter David Baker: He is not from the whole of Saskatchewan; surely not.


James Aloysius McGrath: I have heard his contribution to the debate today-he has made a positive contribution-and I hope he will allow me to do the same thing.
I listened to my colleague, the hon. member for Athabasca. And I also heard him when he spoke at second reading of the bill and I heard his outstanding contribution at third reading of the bill. I find his arguments eminently sensible and logical. When the hon. member for Athabasca spoke on behalf of the official opposition he said that we opposed this bill on two counts: lack of consultation, and the fact that it will seriously undermine confidence in the research community of this country by the professional corps of researchers whom we have been able to gather today in this country largely as a result of this program.
With respect to consultation, the Minister of National Health and Welfare has a long reputation in this House for inability to consult with the provinces. Coincidentally, the last major bill which the minister brought before the House was the act to amend the Family Allowances Act, the child tax credit bill. It is rather interesting that throughout that debate it was found necessary by those who are responsible for the management of the business of the House on the other side to withdraw the minister from that debate because that was the only chance they had of getting the bill through without the embarrassment of having to impose closure.
When that bill came before the House, we on this side argued that the bill had been brought before the House hastily and without adequate consultation, that there was no assurance from each of the provinces that they would honour and respect the child tax credit allowance in terms of the payments that were being made from provincial welfare programs to welfare recipients in the respective provinces. Yet over the week end we find, surreptitiously placed in our mailboxes, under the date of February 2, a communique from the Minister of National Health and Welfare in which she bemoans the fact that her province, the province of Quebec, refuses to honour the child tax credit bill in terms of the welfare recipients in that province and that they will in fact deduct the amount of the child tax credit from welfare payments in the province of Quebec. It is shameful, sir. I join with the minister

February 5, 1979
Health Resources Fund Act
in condemning the province of Quebec for their action in that regard.
I well recall, during the course of the debate on that bill, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, in her usual provocative way, challenging each one of us in the House to make sure that we get commitments from our respective provinces that they will not deduct the amount of the child tax credit from welfare payments. That was her response. She went out of her way to identify and point out that the hon. member for St. John's East enjoyed an unusual relationship with the government of Newfoundland because it was a PC government, and she identified the same situation in Nova Scotia, in New Brunswick, in Ontario, and in Manitoba, all the governments of this country that have seen the light and that no longer support the Liberal philosophy, save for the lone government of Prince Edward Island which is just hanging on by a straw.


Walter David Baker: The Liberal party's last frontier.


James Aloysius McGrath: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Yet is it not passing strange that the minister, who challenged each of us to get a commitment from our provinces that the amount of the child tax credit would not be deducted from welfare payments, could not get that same commitment from her own province of Quebec, notwithstanding the unusual relationship she must enjoy with the government of Quebec because she represents the Government of Canada, she is a minister holding a senior portfolio within the Government of Canada?
Again we see the consequences of the failure of this government to consult adequately with the provinces, because if there had been adequate consultation, if the Minister of National Health and Welfare had called together the various social services ministers of the ten provinces and sat down with them and took them into her confidence, and told them the government would bring in an amendment to the Family Allowances Act and would make provisions for a child tax credit of $200 per child but it wanted an assurance from each one of the provinces that they would not deduct the amount of this child tax credit allowance from the welfare payments that they presently have in place, I believe that provincial governments are reasonable and, when confronted with that kind of reasonable proposition, would respond positively. I am sure that the minister would have been able to obtain an undertaking that no such deduction would be made from the amount of welfare paid.
I talk about the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act in which, again because of lack of consultation, we had the unique, the practically unprecedented situation of the ten provinces of this country saying, "We are just not going to take it any more". They came together and they appeared before the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration and bemoaned the fact that there had been no consultation, notwithstanding the impact that the changes in unemployment insurance would have on the provincial economies, especially on the eastern provinces, and they put forward

positive proposals of their own, proposals which they should have been given the opportunity of making at a federal-provincial meeting.
God knows, we have had enough federal-provincial conferences. Indeed, one wonders about the relevancy of this place when one considers what is going on across the street at the old converted Union station. That has become the real parliament in this city. That is where the action is, and that perhaps explains why the Minister of National Health and Welfare is not in her place tonight. Perhaps she knows that the real decisions are to be made across the street.
If this place is to be relevant and meaningful in terms of its legislative capacity, then I say we have to dig in when the government confronts parliament with a bill of this kind that represents a major breach of faith with the provinces of this country. If we have to dig in, let us dig in, and what better way to dig in?
It is all very well for the minister to talk about the fact that 83 per cent of the program has been completed. Do we ever arrive at the stage where we have completed medical research in this country? Medical research will never end. Indeed, by its very nature it can never end. I believe when this statute was passed by this House 13 years ago the government of the day never had the intention of repealing it. I believe there was an implicit understanding, when the bill was passed, that when the 15-year period was up there would be another program to replace and, indeed, to enlarge upon it.
The fact of the matter is that we are abrogating a solemn undertaking made to the provinces 13 years ago. Why is that so? I suggest it is to save $83 million. The government of this day is embarking upon a spending program that hovers between $45 billion and $50 billion, yet we are taking about $83 million to complete an undertaking to the provinces to provide funding for medical research in this country.
What about the programs that will have to be cancelled, and the research teams which have been brought together and will be lost to this country as a result of the cancellation of this program? I can speak from experience in my own province, that province rich in promise yet so poor in its ability to deliver. We have the newest medical school in the country at the Memorial University of Newfoundland. It is a credit to this country. I would suggest that a large part of the ongoing biomedical research at the Memorial University was made possible by this health resources fund program. The people at that medical school tell me this new institution is going to lose this medical expertise which has been gathered together. That medical school will lose this expertise because it does not have the funding to carry on biomedical research, research in geriatric and family medical practice, those things relatively unsophisticated, yet important things that other medical schools in the country no longer carry out.
What do I say to these people at the university? Where are they to go? Where are they going to look for funding? How can the people involved in a professional research capacity
February 5, 1979

have any confidence in the Government of Canada to fulfil its promise? The answer, of course, is that we will lose these people, as has been so eloquently stated by my friend from Toronto, the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie), and as has been demonstrated by my learned colleague, the hon. member for Athabasca. We will lose these people to the United States, which is perhaps the intention of this government which seems to be able to come up with dollars from some kind of hidden fund to provide sexy political programs in order to fund arenas in large cities in this country for the National Hockey League, an area in which we have a questioned right to be involved.
Perhaps we will lose these people for ever. What will happen then? I suppose then we will go back to the point we were at 13, 14, 15 years ago when most of the medical research done in this country was funded by endowments from the United States. Is that where we want to be, and is that the kind of situation we want in this country? I submit there is not a Canadian who, given the facts, would support that proposition. That is why I believe this bill, innocent though it may appear, and presented in a manner that would indicate it is a mere housekeeping bill, is a blot on the already tarnished image of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: I could ask where the $18 million is to be derived. Is it to come from the $83 million to be saved by cancelling this program? Is that the source of these funds? We have a right to an answer to that question. Is that where the $18 million is coming from in order to improve the image of the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and perhaps to gain a few political yards in those big cities across the country? Perhaps this money is to come from the government's Outreach Program which was cancelled or restricted last year to exclude women. We know about that retrograde step which set back progress in this country by 25 years when it was announced that women would no longer be targets of the Outreach Program. How much was saved by that discriminatory act? Did it save $18 million, enough to finance these arena improvements in Winnipeg, Edmonton, and Quebec City? Where did the money come from? We have a right to know. Did it come partially from the $2 million the government is to save in terms of cutting back on the publications it now makes available for university libraries in this country?
I had to tell the people at my university library that if the government cancels this program they should let me know and I will make the publications available to them if I have access to them. What kind of a misguided sense of priorities is possessed by this government? Why would it eliminate a $2 million program to provide technical publications to the university libraries in this country? What kind of restraint is that? What kind of misguided restraint is it? This is not restraint; this is a facade, a joke, and a misrepresentation of the word "restraint". Nobody expects that kind of restraint.
Nobody expects the Government of Canada to cut back on its commitment to universities, just as nobody in this country
Health Resources Fund Act
would expect the Government of Canada to cut back on its solemn obligation made to the provinces of this country 13 years ago to provide an ongoing program of research in the universities and medical research institutes.
An. hon. Member: It is counter productive.


James Aloysius McGrath: The hon. member suggests this move is counter productive and that it will cost us dearly in the years ahead.
I hope somebody else will take the floor before this bill is allowed to receive third reading. I hope the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), for whom I have great respect, will get to his feet and express his concern over what the government is doing. Perhaps we may even hear from other hon. members. Surely this House of Commons, if it has any sense of responsibility, has the ongoing, solemn responsibility to ensure that commitments outlined by statute to the provinces of this country are honoured and not abrogated by repeal as is happening in the case of this bill now before the House.
I suspect, indeed I know that all is not well within the Department of National Health and Welfare.


Mr. Alexander:: That is what the newspapers say.


James Aloysius McGrath: That is what the newspapers say, and I suspect they know what they are talking about. I believe that if we were able to examine the qualified, capable and dedicated men and women who advise the Minister of National Health and Welfare we would find that they agree with us, and that this act should not be repealed. I suspect that they would also agree with our contention that there must be an ongoing consultation, given the limited jurisdiction of the Government of Canada, in some of these areas, particularly the areas of social policy. The fact that the newspapers have identified that there are problems would indicate to me that they have put their finger on the nub of the situation.
I could go on, Mr. Speaker, and talk about nutrition, child health care, geriatrics, pediatrics and obstetrics, all of which require ongoing research in this country. I could go on and talk about the International Year of the Child and the need for ongoing studies with regard to nutrition, dental care, day care, and immunization. The findings of the nutritional survey of a few years ago, funded by the people of Canada at great expense, for example, identified what is nothing short of a national scandal in this country, the fact that we have a serious problem of malnutrition. It is hard to believe that there is malnutrition and diet deficiency in our young people in this affluent society. It said that our children at age 12 had a physical capability comparable to a 30-year-old Swede. This is all due to inadequate diet, junk food in our schools, and television, as my hon. friend identified, which teaches these children to eat this junk food but does not identify the fact that it has little or no nutritional value.
I could go on and talk about the seriousness of the problem of native people. Indeed, that was a question which came up

February 5, 1979
Health Resources Fund Act
during the course of the debate on the child tax credit bill when we implored that the government make the child tax credit allowance available in quarterly payments because many of the mothers who would be receiving the one large lump sum do not have the experience of managing that amount of money and, as a result, the money would not find its way to the purposes for which parliament intended.
Canada does not have a school lunch program. There is a school lunch program in the United States, and there has been so for many years. There is no suggestion in Canada, however, of sitting down with the provinces and saying, "Look, we have a major problem in this country, our children are undernourished, and because of that undernourishment their learning process is retarded." Our children are more regressive because they are going to school without an adequate breakfast, because there is an iron deficiency in their diet, because they are drinking too much soda pop, because they are taking too much junk cereal, and because they are drinking too much.
Alcoholism among our children has become a major problem, more serious than the soft drug problem. Our kids are getting high on beer and are drinking beer and alcohol on an empty stomach, yet we see the Government of Canada abdicating its responsibility. Why can there not be a program of alcohol education for our young children? Why can they not be told that alcohol, if taken in moderation, is something to be enjoyed, but if abused it can lead to addiction or danger to one's health? In spite of this we tolerate advertising in this country which presents alcohol drinking as a lifestyle to be desired, ads which are sophisticated and almost subliminal in their techniques in trying to hook our kids on X or Y or Z brands of beer, knowing full well that once they have them, they have them for life. But nothing is done in the area of alcohol education on a national basis.
Perhaps nothing is done because of the power of the advertising industry. I do not know. I understand that the breweries of this country spend approximately $30 million on advertising. That is a hell of a big advertising budget by any stretch of the imagination. Perhaps some of these advertising agencies which handle these accounts are friends of the government and that is why it is a no-no.
We did not hear from the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who likes to talk about social policy as though she had the market cornered, on this matter. This government is bankrupt when it comes to social policy, because it has no social policy. If there was a social policy it would not bring in this kind of bill at this particular time. If there was a social policy, there would be an ongoing education program in an attempt to offset some of the dangerous nutritional habits of our young people, a program to provide for adequate day care for single parent families, and to provide adequate day care for family situations where both parents must work in order to offset the consequences of inflation. There would also be programs for instructing young people who assume family responsibilities, as they are doing at a younger and younger age in this country.
This bill would have provided the Minister of National Health and Welfare with an opportunity to come before this House and tell us her concerns about where this country is going. She has not done so, because I do not think she has any concern. I do not think that she really cares. I regret to have to say that in her absence. I would prefer to say that to her face, but she is not here.


An hon. Member:: The parliamentary secretary is here.


James Aloysius McGrath: The parliamentary secretary is here; albeit he arrived a little late, but he is here. The Minister of State (Multiculturalism), the Minister of Labour, and all kinds of ministers are here, but we do not have the minister responsible for this bill, yet she would like us to give it third reading although it violates a solemn obligation made to the provinces to provide ongoing medical research. To what end? To save $83 million, when in the same breath we can save $18 million allocated to fund NHL stadiums in Winnipeg, Edmonton, Hamilton, and Quebec city for professional sports.
We have facilities in my city of St. John's which we put together for the Summer Games. We are proud of what we did in the Summer Games, but those facilities were closed down for a year because we did not have the money to operate them. We could not get any help from the federal governent to operate our beautiful aqua-arena or any of the marvellous facilities we put together to host the young athletes of this country in the Canada Games. Yet we can find $18 million for the National Hockey League in those big cities. What a misguided sense of priority; what a government!
I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are getting ready to rise. May I call it ten o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, on July 18, 1975, the then minister of industry, trade and commerce tabled in this House on behalf of the government what he called the "new principles of international business conduct." At that time he said they were "intended as an updating and replacement of the guiding principles of good corporate behaviour in Canada." These had been announced by the late hon. Robert Winters on March 31, 1966, when he was minister of industry, trade and commerce. When the minister of industry, trade and commerce who is now the Minister of

February 5, 1979

Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) tabled the new set of principles he said they reflected "broad government policy regarding the activities and responsibilities of foreign controlled business enterprises in Canada." He made it clear, as he said, that "they are directed toward all foreign controlled enterprises whether they were involved with the Foreign Investment Review Act or not."
According to a press report early last week, however, officials of several foreign controlled firms in Canada do not seem to be aware of these important principles. The author of the article in question could not find any indication that the government was really monitoring the degree of compliance by such companies with these principles. Yet, when they were tabled in this House in 1975, they were described by the then minister of industry, trade and commerce as "broad government policy".
I gather from what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said in this House last week that this policy is still in force. If this is the case, then the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce must have in place, or must set up as soon as possible, a program to bring forcefully to the attention of senior management of all foreign controlled companies in Canada these new and important principles of international business conduct.
It is not surprising that the companies which were contacted by the journalist about the matter told him they had not heard of these principles. After all, senior executives change fairly frequently; they transfer, retire, assume new responsibilities. Therefore there must be an ongoing effort by the government to remind directly all foreign controlled businesses of these principles. Interestingly enough, that was the approach used by Mr. Winters when he announced the first version of these principles. He also had his department set up a survey to monitor the degree of compliance by foreign controlled companies with these principles. The survey was carried out by regularly sending out questionnaires to a representative sample of foreign controlled companies. The results were published for some years. However, the last publication of the results of the survey was in 1974, to cover only the years 1971 and 1972. The parliamentary library has no later publication of the results of this survey in its collection.
The purpose of the survey is important. It is to assess the degree of voluntary compliance with these principles which in effect call for the application of the FIRA test of "significant benefit" by all foreign controlled companies, including those not covered by that law. Therefore, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) at the very least should publish information updating these survey results. He should reinstitute this survey if, in fact, it was dropped some years ago as appears to be the case. At the very least as well, as I have said, he should ensure the principles of international business conduct are brought regularly to the attention of senior executives of all foreign controlled companies in Canada.
But if these principles were and are government policy, meaning something the government believes should be carried out in the public interest, then the government must soon take steps to ensure there is compliance in fact with that govern-
Adjournment Debate
ment policy it calls the "new principles of international business conduct." It should do this to help accomplish the necessary aim of further expanding employment and economic activity generally in Canada.
The high level of foreign control of our economy is emerging again as a significant political issue in Canada. This is confirmed by a recent Gallup poll showing a high degree of public concern about this high level of control. I believe the government must respond to this concern in a meaningful way if it is to be re-elected by the Canadian people in the coming election. A pledge of action by the government, not just to recognize the benefits but also to deal with the costs to the Canadian economy of this high level of foreign control of our economy, is needed now and in the coming weeks to ensure the re-election of the government but, more important, to assure the long term best interests of the Canadian people.


Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, following their approval in 1975 the new guidelines were distributed to all companies through the information kit provided by FIRA. Those guidelines were also published in the businessman's guide by FIRA and in the FIRA review for 1977. The guide is distributed to companies dealing with FIRA. The review was sent to most financial branches operating in Canada. As for the other question, that is when the results of our survey will be made available and published, it is advisable to point out that the guidelines cannot be effectively controlled on a statistical basis alone. My department is carrying out a voluntary survey among the main branches of foreign companies. The hon. member was right when he said that the results of the last survey were published in 1974. However, the results of the survey up to 1975 were published in May 1978. The data covering the activities for the period ending in 1977 will probably be published in April, 1979. We hope that those results will be effectively used to consider some aspects of operations in foreign-controlled branches. The passage of the amendment in Bill C-3 concerning the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act will surely provide a more effective control and assessment of operations in foreign-controlled branches.
And allow me to say, Mr. Speaker, that in spite of all written instructions which could be tabled today in the House the best guarantee which can be provided is still the daily control made by officials who are anxious to ensure the sound operation of Foreign Investment Review Agency.


INDUSTRY-TAKEOVER OF CANADIAN BUSINESSES
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue the line of questioning pursued by the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), a former cabinet

February 5, 1979
Adjournment Debate
minister. I am sure the same parliamentary secretary will read two or three answers tonight.
I rose in my place on October 23 to inquire of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) regarding the purchase of Northwood Mills in Princeton, British Columbia, by Weyerhaeuser of the United States. I was following hard on questions posed by the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston), as well as the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) who was not asking questions specifically about that but about the high percentage of approvals that FIRA gives to foreign takeovers of companies in Canada.
I would like to survey the situation at the moment. North-wood Mills is a Canadian company that is owned by Noranda, a wholly owned Canadian company. An American multinational wants to purchase it. I do not have anything against Weyerhaeuser. Generally speaking, it is a good corporate citizen.
Northwood does not want to sell to Weyerhaeuser. There is a group of small independent sawmills in the area. They realize their future is threatened if a large multinational comes into the vicinity. The wood industry is precarious. Frequently the margin of profit of these small independent sawmills depends on the sale of their chips.
If Weyerhaeuser purchases Northwood Mills and has an assured supply of chips for its pulp mill in Kamloops, it can do without these small independent sawmills. Naturally, these sawmills are a bit paranoid about this. They have formed a consortium to buy Northwood Mills rather than have it purchased by an American multinational.
FIRA in its true form of approving 85 to 90 per cent of all applications, has approved this application, when at the same time the Canadian small independents are wanting to improve their future. It is passing strange that the hon. member for New Westminster should have questioned the extent to which FIRA gives approval to multinationals while in this transaction the union, IWA, as well as the British Columbia president, Mr. Monroe, approved of the purchase by an American multinational of a Canadian company. The hon. member for New Westminster very sincerely asked about these approvals, yet here it is the unions which will support him in the next election which are saying "We would like to see this American multinational take over a wholly owned Canadian company."
I asked one of the directors about this. He said, "Well, the industry has to be integrated." Okay, the industry needs to be integrated, but must it be under the umbrella of one corporation? Surely, there could be co-operation among the small independents to keep the industry going-they have enough ingenuity for that. I cannot believe that it is the giant corporations which have built the strength into our economy which we have known historically. It is not the multinationals which have done it; it has been the risk taking and the initiative of the small independents.
We have now reached the point at which Weyerhaeuser effectively controls most of the Thompson River watershed

timber supply. One of the problems is that the company has overcut its supply of timber in the Lumby region of British Columbia and now wants the timber reserves owned by this mill in Princeton. We are now in a situation in which Canadian lumber dealers have to phone to an American company in the United States to place orders for Canadian lumber for resale. The first question Weyerhaeuser asks is, "Is there a Weyerhaeuser agent in that area?" And the company will not sell Canadian lumber to a Canadian agent if the lumber is going to a place where there is a Weyerhaeuser agent.
The minister tells me in the House that FIRA is so structured that it will not approve applications unless it is to the benefit of Canada. Yet here they are rubbing out jobs all over the place and we are allowing an American multinational to determine who can sell lumber and where it shall be sold. Is that for the advantage of Canadians? The fact is, the government believes in corporatism. Unions, too, believe in corporatism because they would much prefer to deal with a large corporation than with a number of independents. The package is a lot neater. This is especially true when very small sawmills are in the picture-operations which might not employ union workers.
Moreover, as we know, the corporations have only one certain way of handling competition and that is not through greater efficiency, it is by buying the competition out. So we face the grim prospect in this area of having one or two large companies controlling practically all of the lumber industry in the heart of British Columbia. I do not think the minister, through FIRA, has been acting in the best interests of Canada.
I have here a list of companies which were opting for the purchase of that mill. I notice Riverside Forest Products of Lumby, B.C., Gorman Brothers of Westbank; Aspen Planers of Merritt; Evans Forest Products of Savona; Wonnok Lumber of Mission; Gilbert Smith Forest Products of Barriere, and Drew Sawmill Limited of Malakwa, B.C., all of which said, "This ought to stay a Canadian concern; we object to an American multinational coming into the country and we want to preserve the integrity-"


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. The time allotted to the hon. member has expired.


Bernard Pierre Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, this presentation deals with two controversial points relating to the takeover of Northwood Mills Ltd. of Penticton by Weyerhaeuser Inc. of Tacoma, Washington. First, lumber retailers from the southern mainland of British Columbia might be forced to go to the United States to buy Canadian lumber from Weyerhaeuser. Second, it is feared that small independent sawmills will be separated from the markets buying their chips.
It is true that Canadian and American lumber retailers ordering Canadian lumber from Weyerhaeuser must dial the
February 5, 1979

toll-free telephone number Zenith 98676 which puts them in contact with that company's business section in Tacoma. The billing is made in that municipality. Remittances are sent to P.O. Box 4844 in Vancouver in Canadian funds and any correspondence with Weyerhaeuser must be addressed to 200 Consumer Road, Willowdale, Ontario. Of course, it is also true that practically all the lumber of that company is exported to the United States. It should be noted that even if the wholesale purchases are to be made in the United States Weyerhaeuser operates a number of retail outlets in Kamloops and elsewhere to serve British Columbia consumers.
Indeed, that company is not the only foreign-controlled corporation to centralize its operations in the United States but sometimes you have the opposite: a few foreign-owned corporations operating in Canada have opened in Canadian cities business outlets to serve Canadian and American retailers. Weyerhaeuser is thinking about establishing an outlet near Kamloops but one could consider that an attempt probably on the part of that good hon. member to compete more fiercely with local producers which could also trigger a reaction. As to the effects of this transaction on the small independent sawmills' ability to sell their chips, a comparison between the current situation and what is proposed will show that the effects will be quite negligible.
Just now, the Weyerhaeuser pulp mill in Kamloops is using
550.000	BD (Bone Dry) units of chips a year. Of these,
100.000	units are being provided by the Weyerhaeuser mills of
Adjournment Debate
the area, the rest being supplied by 21 independent sawmills. Weyerhaeuser can produce 190,000 units of chips in its own sawmills, but the current contracts with independent sawmills compel this corporation to reduce its deliveries of chips from its own sawmills in proportion with those of its independent suppliers. The sawmills in Northwood are producing 120,000 units of chips a year, but all their production is sold under contract to B.C. Forest Products Limited.
The independent sawmills are afraid that, as soon as their contracts with the B.C. Forest Products Limited expire, the chips produced by Northwood may be sold to the Weyerhaeuser sawmill, which would reduce the quantities this establishment would buy from them. Several factors are involved here. First of all, in case the contract between the Northwood and the B.C. Forest Products Limited is not renewed, it is to be expected that the latter will try to fill the gap by purchasing the same quantity of chips from the independent sawmills of the region.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary, but his allotted time has expired.
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.18 p.m.

Tuesday, February 6, 1979