1979-02-07

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the increasingly alarming situation in which freedom finds itself today in Europe, Africa and Asia, as freedom-loving nations are falling under the domination of the U.S.S.R. and its satellites, and with the massive Soviet military expansion posing a frightening threat to the west, which a few days ago was described by the former prime minister of the United Kingdom, the Right Honourable Harold Macmillan, in these words, "The Soviet Union seems to get away with anything, just like Hitler got away with anything", in my opinion Canadians and the western world generally have a false sense of security. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski):
That before the dissolution of parliament, two days should be set aside for the discussion of the terrifying international situation and the need for action to be recommended and taken by Canada to meet the situation in so far as our country is concerned, before it may be too late.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The business press reports that in 1978, corporate profits grew at a faster rate than in any period since 1973.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I expected that cheer for profits from a party which has done nothing for prices. The government's monitoring agency, the Centre for the Study of Inflation and Productivity, reports profits in a comparable range. In light of the obvious inflationary implications of uncontrolled increases in corporate prices and profits, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House condemns the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who recently lectured badly paid bank clerks, who are mostly women, for leaving completely untouched the country's largest corporations which are overcharging consumers and making their largest profits in recent history.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: 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.
On October 25 last, 16 Quebec students in training at the Cornwall air controllers' school voluntarily boycotted their classes because of discrimination against them. In view of the serious reasons given by the students, the minister responsible asked that an immediate inquiry be launched and its results have shown that there was some discrimination against the French-speaking group; considering that those students were willing to resume their studies on December 18, always in Cornwall, provided they were given fair treatment, but as six of the sixteen French-speaking students have since been notified that their training was ended, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser):
That the House unanimously urge the minister responsible to see that those students are transferred to the Dorval regional school in the shortest possible time for the sake of justice and equity.

February 7, 1979


Mr. Speaker:: The Elouse has heard the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, presentation of such a motion can be made only with unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 and seek the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a motion relating to a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Given the fact that since January 1, 1979 an agreement between Canada and the United States forbids any Canadian who has a police record of some kind to stay in the United States unless he obtains a special authorization certificate; that such an agreement is a direct breach of individual rights and liberties; and that it uselessly penalizes law abiding citizens who have had the misfortune of making one mistake, however small, in their life, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That the House deplore the existence of such an agreement and instruct the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) to take the necessary steps to abolish this practice as soon as possible since it seems to me to constitute a violation of human rights.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the split decision by the Pakistan supreme court in considering the appeal of former prime minister Bhutto who has been sentenced to death, and in view of the dangers of further unrest in Pakistan, with international implications, if

the sentence is carried out, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston):
That this House express its concern for the stability and well-being of Pakistan and respectfully urge the government of Pakistan to grant clemency to Mr. Bhutto.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion would require unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



REMOVAL OF ARSENIC STORED AT ST. PIERRE, MAN -MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the responsibility the federal government has in that it banned the use of arsenic for pest control, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage (Mr. Masniuk):
That the federal government take its share of the responsibility of moving arsenic now stored in St. Pierre, Manitoba, as the provincial government has undertaken to do its share in the removal of the stored arsenic.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be introduced for debate at this time only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
The Economic Council reported yesterday that as a result of huge price increases, profits in consumer sectors increased tremendously, with large department stores' profits increasing by 87 per cent, those of motor vehicle dealers by 42 per cent, of food stores by 42 per cent and other retailers by 33 per cent, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan):
That this House instructs the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to take some active interest in his portfolio and do his job of protecting Canadian consumers from unjustified price and profit increases.


Mr. Speaker:: The introduction of such a motion for debate would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?
February 7, 1979


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



SOCIAL INSURANCE


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the same Standing Order. In view of the action by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) in forestalling consideration of the regulation of the use of social insurance numbers and the elimination of abuses in the use of social insurance numbers by the device of referring the matter to an advisory committee yet to be selected, and without a clear term of reference, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski):
That this House direct the Minister of Employment and Immigration to immediately refer the question of social insurance numbers to a special committee of this House to investigate uses and abuses of the social insurance numbers, including the sale of official-looking social insurance cards by companies in Canada such as Frank G. Becquet of Mission City, British Columbia.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF JANET MORRISSEY, CANADIAN SENIOR LADIES' FIGURE SKATING CHAMPION

Mr. Speaker:: Before beginning the question period, may I invite members to join me in recognizing the presence in our gallery of a very welcome and distinguished Canadian who has just been crowned senior ladies' figure skating champion of Canada, Janet Morrissey.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, my question is to the Prime Minister.
Oral Questions
The Prime Minister will know that on Monday the Minister of Finance revised upward his estimate of inflation this year. He also said in that speech that as a result of inflation and high domestic interest rates, he expects that there would be negative implications for our economic growth. I wonder if our Prime Minister can tell us whether the government is also now revising downward its forecasts of real growth.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: That is what a leader looks like, Joe.


An hon. Member:: How do you know?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the support from my side. I think it is because I have been away from the House for the past two days.


An hon. Member:: We have not noticed it.


An hon. Member:: Nobody missed you.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have some difficulty understanding it myself, Mr. Speaker. I was not in the House, I did not hear the speech of the Minister of Finance and I am not briefed on it. The excellent parliamentary secretary tells me that the Minister of Finance will be here in a few moments, and perhaps the question could be asked of him then. The Leader of the Opposition asked me specifically whether the Minister of Finance covered the rate of growth. I do not know if he mentioned that, Mr. Speaker.


Charles Joseph Clark: If it is agreeable to the House, I am certainly prepared to delay my questioning in the first round until the Minister of Finance finds it convenient to come to parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REQUEST THAT HEADS OF LARGE CORPORATIONS GIVE COMMITMENTS TO HOLD DOWN PRICES AND PROFITS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. As he knows, the Centre for the Study of Inflation and Productivity, yesterday and the business pages of the press in most cities across Canada, today demonstrated astronomically high increases in the profits of corporations and, therefore, in the prices of almost every sector of the Canadian economy.
Considering that almost every Canadian makes a purchase from one of the large department stores, and considering specifically that their profits went up some 89 per cent-we know what that means for prices-will the Prime Minister take some concrete action and call in, for example, the head of Simpsons-Sears, the head of Hudson's Bay-


An hon. Member:: It is the same person.

February 7, 1979
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: -and the head of Eaton's, and get from them specific commitments to hold down prices and profits in the coming year?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am informed that the figures given by the hon. member and those which were published are not final, that they are subject to revision. Indeed, the Centre for the Study of Inflation and Productivity has already revised some of its higher figures and has shown that they were considerably lower.
The point remains, however, that there are profits, sometimes substantial profits, in various sectors. Members on this side have indicated their reaction to it and this is my reaction: we are glad that there are profits. I would even say that the government is probably largely responsible for the fact that there are profits.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We introduced budget measures which were designed precisely for that, Mr. Speaker, to increase incentives for investment and, hopefully, to accelerate growth in the business world with profits and more jobs for Canadians.


An hon. Member:: It did not do that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I know members of the NDP are unhappy that companies make profits. This has been their policy all the time. They do not seem to realize that when business is not losing money, it is able to go on to invest and to create jobs. That is too complicated for the NDP.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I understand your impatience, but if I am heckled you have to let me give my answer.


An hon. Member:: Not forever and ever.


An hon. Member:: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker Trudeau.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There is a lot of skittishness on the other side;
I am not sure why. What is happening, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Edward Broadbent: Considering that wage and salary increases last year, in 1978, for Canadian workers were only up slightly more than 6 per cent, and considering that a couple of weeks ago the Prime Minister lectured women bank clerks, who are amongst the worst paid in the country, is he now saying to the people of Canada that firms such as those in the retail sector which have had astronomical profit increases well beyond their increase in sales are justified in that course of action, and is he going to defend unlimited profits and attack ordinary workers who want a decent income? Is that what he is saying?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about attacking ordinary workers and lecturing bank clerks. I put it

to him that he has said this a few times and that he is distorting the facts. He may, in his tunnel vision, not understand what I have been saying; I will repeat it. But surely that is not what I said.
I said that it is good there are profits, and that it is important those profits be used to create growth in the economy. I said inside this House, outside this House and when I met with the business leaders, that it is of great concern to the government that having made profits-which shows progress in the growth of the economy-they not be used just for the benefit of the shareholders, but that the corporations have a responsibility to see that the distribution of those profits is for the good of all Canadians. Apart from the shareholders, the corporations have to consider the consumers, the workers and the growth of the enterprise itself. In other words, they must reinvest the profits to make more jobs for more Canadians. That is the position of the government. We are not apologetic about profits; we are glad that there are profits.


Mr. Forrestall:: We don't need a lecture on economics.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We are very happy that the workers can get increased wages as a result of those profits. What we are saying is that the corporations should not expect, if they are going to give increased wages to their workers and increased dividends to their shareholders, to be able to turn around and get increased prices from the consumers just as a result of their largesse to themselves.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in the Prime Minister's long answer he made one of his red herring accusations. He knows as well as I that this party has never opposed unreasonable profits.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I notice that the Prime Minister is smiling. He is aware of my point that, for example, we have governed in the province of Saskatchewan which has the lowest cost government in this country, per capita, and it favours reasonable profits.
Considering that in the United States both President Kennedy and President Johnson, when they saw that the steel sector was making more than reasonable profits and indulging in price-gouging, called the companies in and forced them to reduce their prices and profits. What I am asking, in this context, is that the Prime Minister put up or shut up. Will he do the same in this country on behalf of Canadian consumers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party said that his party has never opposed unreasonable profits; is that right?


John Edward Broadbent: Reasonable profits.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: So he is opposed to reasonable ones?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
February 7, 1979

Oral Questions


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member has gone back into the history of President Kennedy and others and has said that they called in the steel industry. We did the very same thing: we set up the Estey commission, called in the steel industry and had an inquiry to which they responded. The hon. member did not like the report, but that is what we did.
I repeat the position of the government: the profits are welcome, but it is important that those who get the profit consider that the Canadian economic society as a whole has helped them to make that profit and, therefore, it should not only be for their shareholders nor, indeed, for their workers. If the workers can get an increased share of the profits, that is fine with the government. We just do not want these companies or corporations, particularly those which are regulated, to seek to justify higher rates by saying, "We need more money and we shall get it out of the consumer or make these profits". That is the position of the government. I should like to hear the Leader of the NDP state his position with regard to these profits.

[ Translation]


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the secretary of State for External Affairs.
On January 1, 1979 an agreement was concluded between Canada and the United States whereby every Canadian who has a police record, no matter how trivial or how old, is forbidden to enter the United States unless he obtains a special authorization certificate.
Can the minister substantiate this agreement with the United States and tell us if it is a one-way agreement or if the same thing applies to an American citizen who wants to come to Canada?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: In view of the complexity of the question and the importance of answering it precisely, I would appreciate it if the hon. member would allow me to take it as notice. I will get a reply for him as quickly as possible.


IDENTITY OF PERSON WHO RECEIVED DOUBLE PAYMENT UNDER BOEING CONTRACT
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Yesterday, in reply to a question from the Leader of the Opposition as to the name of the person or persons to whom Boeing executed two consulting agreements in Canada, the Solicitor General clearly identified the recipient as a Boeing consultant who was working as a consultant of Boeing in Canada in connection with the sale of Boeing aircraft in this country.
The hon. gentleman has identified the recipient by his position. Would he now drop the other shoe and give us his name?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: I purposely did not provide the name yesterday because there was no evidence of any impropriety in terms of the payment to that gentleman and I saw no purpose in providing the name.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I presume that if there was no impropriety, the gentleman would not mind his name being known in this respect. However, in yesterday's answer, as from today's, it seems clear that the Solicitor General knows the name of the person who received the double payment. Can he advise us whether there is any law in Canada against this practice, and did the hon. gentleman consult with the Minister of Justice to determine what charges might be laid?


Mr. Blais:: Against what practice?


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Against the practice this consultant engaged in, of taking two payments from the corporation for doing one job. In the deposition set out by the company itself in the District Court of Columbia, it is pointed out that the purpose of such a practice was to enable the agent to bank some of the money in foreign banks.


Jean-Jacques Blais: The hon. member did not indicate whether there is evidence that two payments were paid to the gentleman, and whether there were or not, the information I have is that all the allegations which were adduced before the SEC in the United States have been investigated, and the reply I have given in this House two days running still stands.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions dealing with youth that I should like to address to the Minister of Justice. They arise from the answer he gave on Friday in response to a question dealing with marijuana.
Since as far back as 1972 all parties in the House have indicated their support for decriminalization in the case of

February 7, 1979
Oral Questions
simple possession, why has the government failed to take any action, and why has it allowed Canadians to get criminal records in this area when the matter could have been cleared up by passing two orders in council, one under the Narcotic Control Act taking marijuana out of schedule 3 and another under the Food and Drugs Act putting marijuana into schedule G?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Justice):: 1 think the solution put forward by the hon, member is not as simple as he would like us to believe. Passing the orders in council might remove the possession of marijuana completely from the category of offences. Our position is that possession of marijuana should still remain an offence, though not one that would lead to retaining a criminal record.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, after passing two orders in council, if the minister then brought in a bill to make the offence subject to a civil penalty, or some other penalty he might contemplate which would not result in a record, does the minister not feel that it would pass very rapidly in this House?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that the hon. member indicates his party would co-operate in a speedy consideration of a bill which might be introduced in this House. I will consult with the other parties. If the hon. member can assure me that he really speaks for his party when he speaks like he does, then we will be very happy to consult to see how fast we can proceed.


AUTHORITY FOR GRANT TOWARD DEVELOPMENT OF ARENAS FOR PROFESSIONAL HOCKEY
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport). On March 25, 1977, at page 4337 of Hansard, the minister was asked by my colleague, the hon. member for Athabasca, if her department had the authority-
-to grant funds for the upgrading for stadia used by professional teams of one kind or another?
Her reply was a definite no. Can the minister please explain where she suddenly gets authority to grant $18 million for development of hockey arenas for professional teams, while at the same time cutting $5 million in grants for amateur sport in Canada?


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, naturally the authority comes from the cabinet. I want to make it quite clear-


An hon. Member:: It never does.


Iona Campagnolo: -to the hon. gentleman that these are for municipally-owned and run arenas and not for privately-

owned ones. The restriction is extremely clear, that unless these arenas are available to amateurs, the money will not be forthcoming.


Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister will show us her authority on some occasion. In 1977, when speaking at the Canadian National Exhibition on Sports Day, the minister asked herself the following question:
What role should the federal government, either alone, or jointly play with the provinces, relating to pro sport?
She answered her own question in this way:
An answer is necessary, not to have the authority to direct or control pro sport, but to help clear up the financial responsibilities on the amateur side of sports such as hockey, football, golf and baseball which are heavily professionalized.
What consultations has the minister had with the provinces which lead her to offer $18 million for professional sports in her efforts to assist amateur sports?


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, 1 have had much consultation with the mayors of the cities involved-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Iona Campagnolo: -and their views are extremely well documented in all of their visits to me. Incidentally, for the hon. member's edification, he should consider that the WHA cities particularly have been under a Catch 22 provision in their attempts to receive and attract an NHL franchise. Catch 22 works like this: the NHL says to the WHA teams, "If you get some extra seating in your arenas, we will consider your application." We in the government say to them, and the provincial governments, in some cases, with the exception of Mr. Levesque who has found a new enchantment with federalism-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Iona Campagnolo: -"We will give you the seats if you get the NHL franchise." This government has taken an active step in removing that Catch 22 provision so that in consideration of any expansion of the National Hockey League there will be no impediment as to the number of seats that will be in the arena which, as I say, is municipally-owned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. In Monday's Ottawa Journal, the president of Air Canada is quoted as saying that the government is considering selling Air Canada to the private sector. In that article, Mr. Taylor gave several good reasons why the government might make this decision.
February 7, 1979

In view of the fact these reasons could apply equally well to other Crown corporations, is the government prepared, or is it considering divesting itself of and selling off some of the 400-odd Crown corporations it now possesses?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge, the government has made no decision at this time to sell of any of its present Crown corporations.


FINANCIAL CONTROL OVER CROWN CORPORATIONS
Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, in view of that, and in view of the 1976 Auditor General's report which was highly critical of the degree of financial control over Crown corporations, which led to a Privy Council study which in turn led to a promise of amendments to the Financial Administration Act in the fall of 1977, my question to the President of the Privy Council is: Where is the bill? Where are the amendments to the Financial Administration Act so that we might try and straighten out this mess which the Auditor General pointed out three years ago and which is costing Canadian taxpayers millions?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the bill is not on the order paper, nor do I expect to put it there in the near future.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
With reference to Mr. Denis Lazure's statement that the Canadian government is penalizing Quebeckers who are social welfare recipients, is it true that the child tax credit is penalizing these Quebeckers, how much money is the province of Quebec losing this way, and why was the province of Quebec not consulted before the relevant amendments to the Family Allowances Act were introduced?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, the child tax credit is to the advantage of mothers who are on social welfare, for they will provide Quebec mothers with $60 million more in 1979. On the other hand, 75 per cent of all Quebec mothers are fully or partly entitled to the payment of this new cheque.
This program is associated with the federal tax system and does not work to the detriment of Quebeckers, and as a minister whose province of origin is Quebec, I can assure the hon. member that the problem is essentially that of a province
Oral Questions
which wants to collect from the poor and destitute the money which is paid directly to Canadian citizens.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In November, the government cut the manufacturing sales tax by 3 per cent and, in essence, handed over $1 billion to the corporations. Statistics Canada said today the industry selling price index for manufacturing was up 10 per cent this year over last year.
The minister said on January 23 when we questioned him in the House that he would look into this matter to see whether or not the sales tax cut was passed on to consumers. Can the minister tell the House what specific action the government is taking to make sure the sales tax cut is passed to consumers as intended?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out when I answered the question on a previous occasion, the inventories that are benefiting from the tax cut only came on the market about the middle of January; they were not on the market before Christmas, as alleged in the question the hon. member put earlier and as the Canadian Consumers' Association alleged.
Since these inventories came on the market only recently, we are watching them closely through the 50 offices of our department across the country, and by working with CSIP which has the analytical manpower to analyse any situation which seems to be out of line. Thus far, we have received very few complaints with respect to the fact that the cuts are not being passed on.
I might say that prior to the end of the year the AIB wrote to all of the companies reporting to it, asking how they intended to pass on this tax cut. That information was provided to the Minister of Finance. Most companies set out their plans. We are watching the situation closely now. So far we have had no information that they are not, but it is too early to judge.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, again I ask the minister what mechanism the government is going to set up to make sure that this is enforced. In some cases, for instance, car prices were cut in December, but were raised by some companies in January. What mechanism is the government going to use to make sure these sales tax cuts are actually enforced, in view of complaints made by the Consumers' Association and others?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the mechanism was set out by the Minister of Finance in his budget when he announced the tax cut. Our department will act as the eyes and ears, taking in information from across the country. CSIP will be the group which will analyse the information and report, after their

February 7, 1979
Oral Questions
analysis, whether the cut is being passed on or not. If it is not being passed on, we intend to make that public, jawbone, and press for the passing on of the tax cut.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Finance flows from his speech in Toronto on Monday in which he revised upward his estimate of inflation in the country. He indicated that the government's high interest policy, plus its failure to control inflation in the country, are likely to, and I quote, "have negative implications for our economic growth". Is the minister also revising downward his real growth forecast?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.


STEPS TO NARROW CURRENT ACCOUNT DEFICIT
Charles Joseph Clark: The minister will know that Governor Bouey of the Bank of Canada took the opportunity yesterday to repeat very strongly his view that Canada's current account deficit is too large. Can the Minister of Finance tell us if he has any new steps in mind to narrow the current account deficit, steps that have not been announced in the House?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I presented a budget on November 16 last which gave a lot of stimulus to the industrial sector in order to make it more competitive. I have made many speeches urging Canadians to ensure that the competitive advantages we have gained through the devaluation of the Canadian dollar are maintained. I have stated that if Canadians show restraint and responsibility in not asking for too much compensation or too big a profit, and if the profits are invested in a more productive and more competitive capacity, the gain we have made lately in the current account will improve. Last year we had a record surplus in trade of $3.5 billion. We expect it will be higher in 1979.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the minister did bring in a budget last November. His forecasts then were wrong, as his forecasts have always been wrong. Yesterday, Governor Bouey indicated to the economic affairs committee of this House that he believes he has done all he can on the monetary side and that fiscal policy is up to the Government of Canada.
In light of the failure of the government's fiscal policy to stop the fall of the Canadian dollar, will the minister tell us if he is planning any changes in fiscal policy and, in particular, in light of the failure of the November budget can he tell us if he

is giving any consideration to the preparation of a spring budget?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the measures of the last budget were well received and we can now see the effects of them. There is a lot more economic activity in the land. In the past 12 months, 455,000 new jobs have been created for Canadians. As Governor Bouey said yesterday, he can only reply with regard to the monetary policy, and the fiscal policy is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance. After the crying of last week, it was noticed by everyone that the Leader of the Opposition failed to appear to question Governor Bouey.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The minister well knows that the understanding was that if the Prime Minister was prepared to show up as a witness, I would be there to question him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: My question to the minister is this. The governor indicated he has done as much as he thinks he can do with regard to monetary policy. He indicated we have very serious problems with the dollar. He suggested, although he is, quite properly, not going to comment on fiscal policy, that remedies lie on the fiscal side. Is the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for fiscal policy, planning any fiscal initiatives, or is he going to let the dollar keep on falling?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the governor is not called upon to make comments on fiscal policy. However, when the opposition insisted, he said very clearly that if I were to increase the deficit as proposed by the opposition, the situation would get worse. He said that if I were to accept the proposition of the hon. member-the professor-who has indicated we should have a lower interest rate, the effect would be to have a weaker dollar. The governor said there is some alternative. We could raise taxes. At the same time, he said that if we were to do that, it would have a negative effect on the economy.
Fiscal policy calls for judgments. We have made them. The economy is doing much better. If I were to follow the phantom deficit policies of the opposition, the dollar would be lower than ever. I think we have followed the best policy possible at this time. That is why many sectors of the Canadian economy have been operating at full capacity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIVATE FORECASTERS' ESTIMATE OF REAL GROWTH
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance who, not having been in attendance at the standing committee meeting yesterday, obviously knows as little about what the governor said to that committee as he knows about the economy itself. My question is centred on the minister's statement to my leader
February 7, 1979

Oral Questions
that he anticipated a real growth as he had set out in the [DOT] <l450>
November budget, of 4 to 4'A per cent.	COMMUNICATIONS
Is the minister aware that private forecasters feel that is an excessive forecast? In fact, Wood Gundy, in their latest study, said that they believed real growth will be 2.6 per cent this year. If that is so, why does the minister persist in overstating real growth figures, only to be proven wrong in months to come?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that it is quite difficult to forecast. Last year I was in agreement with the hon. member for Ottawa Centre in forecasting 5 per cent. The hon. member should talk with him.

I said, Mr. Speaker, that there is no need for me to revise my forecasts at this time because in the last two weeks we have had occasion to meet Canadian businessmen and in the course of our conversations with representatives of all sectors of the Canadian economy, from the east to the west, they told us that, despite the decrease forecast in the economic growth in the United States, their order books for their American clients are full, and that a confidence exists in the market that is nowhere to be found at this time in the ranks of the opposition.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my second question will be to the minister's superior, the President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers. On February 1 last, the minister, in explaining his gifts or proposed gifts to certain members of the forest products industry in this country, stated with regard to their good cash flow to which he referred and their good profits:
It is very much related to the temporary situation with regard to the Canadian dollar, a competitive advantage they enjoy now but one which I do not think anyone anticipates may last very long-


USE OF EARTH STATIONS BY CABLE TV OPERATORS IN REMOTE AREAS
Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. In view of the announced plans of the Department of Communications to experiment with individual roof-type earth stations on some homes in certain rural areas of Canada, can the minister tell the House whether this experiment may also be broadened in such a way as to allow cable TV operators in isolated areas such as northern Ontario to utilize suitable earth stations and thereby provide a much wider range of TV viewing choices to their subscribers?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that kind of experiment is designed precisely to allow people in remote areas to receive broadcast signals directly from the satellite to their homes. The reason Canada developed that particular technology through the Hermes satellite was in order to allow remote areas of the country to participate in the full development of this country.
However, at the present time, there is a need for more considerable use of the satellite for broadcasting, and cable operators and others are actively putting together broadcast programs for it. When this is done, the liberalization of the earth station policy will help all these regions to acquire this service at relatively low cost. The answer to the hon. member's question, in short, is that that is exactly the purpose of the experiment.


POST OFFICE
[Stage Direction]
What substantive evidence does the minister have to give us that that is a fact, that the Canadian dollar is only temporarily low at the present time?
Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers):: Mr. Speaker, there are many people in the world who think that the Canadian dollar represents a figure that is undervalued and is, therefore, very attractive. In speaking to the forest products industry and quoting their own views, in making serious decisions about investments down the track and plants to come on stream two, three or five years hence, they quite wisely would prefer not to count on what I think is a temporary competitive advantage related to the Canadian dollar.
It is a very logical argument that they share, that they do not want to make forward investments of the magnitude that are required, in the neighbourhood of $3 billion, over the next five to seven years on that assumption.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. The House will recall that the last time I asked him a question regarding what he felt was a need to fire some 500 postal workers in order to bring about efficiency in the Post Office, the minister wiffled and waffled: he said the number could be 100 or 1,000.
I do not want to charge the minister with seeking sensational press in order to antagonize unions or bamboozle the public, so I will ask him to come clean with the Canadian public. Has the minister a list of such persons and, if he does, does he know the unions to which they belong? That is a simple question which does not call for any long, rhetorical answers, which is what I usually get.


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can answer the question, because of the way it was put. The hon. member for Hamilton West is a lawyer from a working town, and I would like to take this

February 7, 1979
Oral Questions
occasion to correct what he said the other day on a point of order. Ele said that the Post Office is under a closed shop status. There is no such thing as a closed shop at the Post Office. Postal workers are covered by the Rand formula, and that is the information I must give the hon. member. If they were covered by a closed shop, every time a union suspends a postal worker we would have to suspend him from work at the same time, and this is what CUPW has asked.
With regard to the 500 workers we are supposed to fire, I gave an answer to that the other day which I think was very simple. In a telephone conversation with the media, I said the number could be 100, 500 or 1,000. My job is not to defend workers or management; my job is to see that both fulfil their responsibilities, and that is the job I am doing at the moment.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, 1 think I can now charge the minister with seeking sensational press in order to antagonize the unions and bamboozle the public. I related to the minister reports of pilfering, smoking pot, drinking and goofing off, and these reports have not been challenged. The reports indicate that the minister finds that he cannot correct these situations because of the rules.
Is the minister now telling the Canadian people that because of present rules, supervisors and managers find their hands are tied and that they are unable to manage efficiently and effectively? In other words, what is the sense of having a department if it cannot be controlled?


Mr. Lamontagne:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that we live in a democracy and not under a dictatorship. We try to see that our workers work well, but when we see headlines in the newspapers such as the one we saw this morning, "Post Office ordered to rehire two accused of drug trafficking", we have to accept judges' decisions in these matters. We do not like it, but we have to accept them. We have to abide by the rules of democracy.
However, as far as I am concerned, there is no backing off. If postal workers do not want to fulfil their responsibilities, and if they do not want to work honestly, we will see that they get out of the Post Office.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Urban Affairs. I should like to ask the minister if the changes that were made and are continuing to transform the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will result in authorizing it to negotiate directly with municipalities or county councils in the case of the RRAP?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the traditional responsibility of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is to help and support the construction of housing in Canada and in particular to renovate and rehabilitate housing. Whatever changes have been made in the administration of the corporation, that responsibility remains intact. On the other hand, as far as dealing directly with the municipalities is concerned, the CMHC powers have neither been increased nor, in fact, decreased. The Canadian government recognizes that municipalities are primarily a provincial jurisdiction and it intends to respect that jurisdiction.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechassse):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this policy is continuing and that many applications for home renovation are pending, particularly in the rural areas I am more familiar with, could the minister indicate whether much more funds will be made available to those responsible for the implementation of this program so as to permit-for spring is coming, hopefully-a boom in the construction industry in order to create jobs while enabling a great many families to upgrade their homes?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the government is fully aware that we alone cannot meet the needs in housing renovation. For this reason we have proposed to amend the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act to allow the private sector to step in and extend loans to people who wish to upgrade their home. These loans could be guaranteed by the government through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I hope the hon. member and his colleagues will give Bill C-29 quick consideration when it is before the House.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. We were wondering where he had gone or where he could be. Was he not with us because he can't stand the fuss without getting briefed by Bouey?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I do not think he was briefed by Bouey, because of the inaccurate statements he made, but I want to ask the minister this: Since Mr. Bouey has said that progress in reducing the current account deficit in international trade will help return confidence in Canadian currency in international markets, and in view of the minister's forecast of last June 1 that our merchandise trade balance would be $5 billion in 1978, and his forecast on September 28 that it would be $4 billion and the forecast by the Minister of Industry, Trade and
February 7, 1979

Commerce in December, still that it would be $4 billion and afterwards it turned out to be $3.52 billion, would the minister now give the Flouse his estimate of our merchandise trade balance, what it is likely to be for 1979?
Would he also give his estimate of what our definition on the current international account is likely to be in 1979, not his Mickey Mouse forecasts but an honest forecast?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it was probably because the hon. member was too much of a poet that he had to leave this job as minister in Newfoundland.
In the forecasts I made in September at my press conference here, I said that the trade surplus would be between $3.5 billion and $4 billion. It turned out to be $3.52 billion. The hon. members should read both parts of the press statement I made in September. I said $3.5 billion to $4 billion. I think that is a record surplus, and I said earlier today that the surplus next year will be even bigger than that for this year. It will be another record.
At the same time, I think we have to make sure that we maintain a very competitive position with our products. That is exactly what we are trying to do at this time. We have gained much in the last little while. We are doing very well with the fisheries of Newfoundland, with wood products, with pulp and paper, with steel, with shoes and with textiles, and I think that the economy is doing pretty well at this time.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, every time the minister does not answer, he only shows in what complete chaos his department is.
In view of the fact that the increase in the trade surplus last year was $600 million, but that everybody forecasts an increase in the current account deficit of at least an additional $400 million, something in the area of $4.5 billion, despite the $600 million increase in the trade surplus, which indicates that we need to gain at least an additional $1 billion this year in our merchandise trade surplus to stay where we are in our current account deficit, can the minister now give us his estimate, or the estimate of the president of the board of economic eunuchs, or whoever's estimates, of what these figures are likely to be this year, not the wild forecasts of last year? Will he answer the question I ask him on the estimates of this year, not the pack of nonsense he got off with last year?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I have to repeat for the third time today, Mr. Speaker, that the trade surplus for 1979 is predicted to be more than $3.5 billion.
Order Paper Questions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-459, to amend the Juvenile Delinquents Act (restitution for wilful damage).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the council of North York, and its mayor Mel Lastman, have expressed concern about the growing damage caused by vandalism by juvenile delinquents. The purpose of this bill is to make parents or adults responsible for juvenile delinquents responsible for making restitution for the damage they do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Translation}

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 172, 471, 653, and 860.


Mr. Forrestall: For the year (a) 1976 (b) 1977, what amount was paid to each member of the Port Authorities at (i) Halifax (ii) Saint John (iii) Quebec (iv) Montreal?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: The National Harbours Board advises as follows:
Halifax	(a)	(b)
	1976	1977
G. E. Simmons	$5,850.00	$3,021.43K. R. Schnare	1,300.00	942.31J. W. E. Mingo	1,150.00	1,400.00F. H. Howard	1,200.00	735.71P. C. Fralic	1,200.00	1,350.00D. A. Mosher	1,350.00	1,300.00A. C. Huxtable	1,250.00	1,300.00W. L. Single	1,150.00	1,350.00F. M. Weston	850.00	885.71
Three port authority members were appointed to the port executive committee effective April 14, 1977, and received the following additional remuneration:
G. E. Simmons	$5,734.54
F. H. Howard	3,584.05
F. M. Weston	3,584.05
2984

February 7, 1979
Order Paper Questions
(ii) Saint John	(a)	(b)
	1976	1977
F. G. Elkin	$5,150.00	$3,012.99C. E. Brownell	1,850.00	1,431.47A. D. Case	2,250.00	1,702.50T. C. Frink	1,700.00	1,381.47P. W. Oland	1,750.00	1,331.47R. R. McCain	1,000.00	
Five port authority members were appointed to the port executive committee effective May 18, 1977, and received the following additional remuneration:
F. G. Elkin C. E. Brownell A. D. Case T. C. Frink P. W. Oland


[Stage Direction]
(iii) Quebec	(a)	(b)
	1976	1977
E. J. Brennan	$1,716.66	1,583.34J. Fortier	2,250.00	2,787.50P. M. Gourdeau	1,616.16	1,433.34G. Lamontagne	1,416.66	1,078.51*P. Langlais	1,866.66	1,833.34J. C. Morissette	1,616.66	1,833.34A. Trottier	1,516.66	1,483.34I. C. Pollack	2,933.32	5,266.68D. Vandry	1,516.66	1,483.34
* Payments up to May 24, 1977 only.
(iv) Montreal	(a)	(b)
	1976	1977
R. Strauss	$2,450.00	$2,500.00J. Carton	2,400.00	2,600.00A. C. Pathy	2,350.00	2,350.00A. E. Masters	2,300.00	2,400.00L. R. Desmarais	2,500.00	2,450.00Y. Lamarre	2,400.00	2,400.00A. Desautels	2,500.00	2,400.00R. Trudeau	2,450.00	2,550.00J. L. Thom	2,450.00	2,550.00J. M. St-Onge	2,500.00	2,500.00Four board members served on	the executive committeeof the port of	Montreal and	received the following
remuneration:
	1976	1977
R. Beauchemin	$3,865.00	$8,926.00J. M. Chabot	5,154.00	5,580.00I. C. Campbell	2,577.00	5,156.00R. Boyer	-	1,298.00
[Stage Direction]
package numerous pieces of research in suitable manner for publication" instead of having the Department of Agriculture's Information section package the material?
Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Warren F. Lee was contacted to prepare a research monograph integrating existing independent research papers on a variety of topics related to long-term farm finance policy. The objective was to provide a coherent work as a basis for public awareness and debate on the issues involved. An article based on the resulting paper will be published in the Canadian Farm Economics.
Mr. Lee had the necessary experience and expertise in the field of farm finance which was not available from information services of this department.


Mr. Firth: What was the amount of money allotted to the Government of the Northwest Territories by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for (a) primary and elementary (b) secondary (c) university (d) college or vocational Native education in 1977-78 and what is the estimate for 1978-79?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: The annual operating grant for the Northwest Territories government is not given on an allocated basis. It is therefore not possible to identify how much of the grant is used by the territorial government for educational purposes.


Mr. Stevens: From January 1, 1975 to date, what lawyers in the Constituency of York-Simcoe were retained by the Farm Credit Corporation and, by year, what aggregate amount of mortgage funds were advanced by each of the lawyers listed and what amount in fees was paid to each?


Eugene Whelan: Farm Credit Corporation replies as follows: lawyers retained by Farm Credit Corporation in the constituency of York-Simcoe from January 1, 1975 to date are:
Thomas D. McPherson,
Aurora	York County
Edwin J. Myers,
Barrie	Simcoe County
Mortgage funds advanced:
1978-79*	1977-78	1976-77	1975-76**By Myers	$4,738,900	$5,414,700	$2,063,700	$4,206,000By McPherson 767,000	821,000	465,700	594,300
* April 1, 1978 to December 31, 1978.
** April 1, 1975 to March 31, 1976. Prior to April 1, 1975, information not available.


Mr. Wise: With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,793 of the Third Session of the 30th Parliament, for what reason was Warren F. Lee given $2,533.44 "to 
Fees paid to lawyers in the constituency of York-Simcoe by Farm Credit Corporation are paid as follows: (i) by the borrowers upon their direction out of the proceeds of the
February 7, 1979

mortgage loans, in which case Farm Credit Corporation does not maintain records of amounts so paid; and (ii) by Farm Credit Corporation on mortgage proceedings-Nil.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 621 could be made an order for return, that return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	In the past ten years, how many studies of the Cowichan River on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, has the Department of Fisheries and of the Environment (a) contracted out (b) undertaken itself and, in each case (i) on what date was it commissioned and for what purpose (ii) what organization or person was charged with carrying it out (iii) what was its total cost?
2.	What are the boundaries of the "fish habitat" on the Cowichan River and what further areas are necessary to the development of fish stocks on the River?
3.	What studies are (a) currently underway (b) being planned in regard to the Cowichan River?
Return tabled.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, would you be good enough to call starred question No. 526.
Mr. Speaker, because of the length of the answer to the starred question, I ask the consent of the House to have this printed in Hansard as if read.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


Mr. Muir: 1. What are the names of the ships operating the Gulf Ferry service to the Province of Newfoundland?
Order Paper Questions
2. What is the classification of each ship, as to ownership, charter, crew and cost per day?
[Editor's Note: The answer to the question is the following:]

1.	The names of the ships operating in the Gulf ferry service to the province of Newfoundland are:
A.	M.V. Frederick Carter
B.	M.V. Sir Robert Bond
C.	M.V. Marine Nautica
D.	M.V. Marine Atlantica
E.	M.V. Stena Nordica (summer only)
2.	The classification of each ship as to ownership, charter, crew and cost per day is:
A.	M.V. Frederick Carter
(i)	owned by D.O.T., Canadian flag vessel.
(ii)	not chartered.
(iii)	Canadian crew.
(iv)	no charter costs for this ship.
B.	M.V. Sir Robert Bond
(i)	owned by D.O.T., Canadian flag vessel.
(ii)	not chartered.
(iii)	Canadian crew.
(iv)	no charter costs for this ship.
C.	M.V. Marine Nautica
(i)	owned by Stena Line A/B of Gothenburg, Sweden, Swedish flag vessel.
(ii)	bareboat chartered.
(iii)	Canadian crew.
(iv)	charter costs per day are $8,682 Canadian dollars.
D.	M.V. Marine Atlantica
(i)	owned by Stena Line A/B of Gothenburg, Sweden, Swedish flag vessel.
(ii)	bareboat chartered.
(iii)	Canadian crew.
(iv)	charter costs per day are $8,682 Canadian dollars.
E.	M.V. Stena Nordica
(i)	owned by Stena Line A/B of Gothenburg, Sweden, Swedish flag vessel.
(ii)	bareboat chartered.
(iii)	Canadian crew.
(iv)	charter cost per day $14,335 Canadian dollars.

February 7, 1979
Point of Order-Mr. McKenzie


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.



POINTS OF ORDER


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on October 17, 1978 I placed a question on the order paper, question No. 238. The question was:
As of March 31, 1978, was there an excess of $9 billion in the public service superannuation account and, if so, (a) in what instruments was the $9 billion invested-
We will be debating Bill C-12 today or tomorrow which has to do with pensions and indexing, one of the most important topics of discussion in Canada today, yet we do not have the proper information from the government to debate this bill.
To confuse the matter further, the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) is distributing literature in Ottawa stating:
-there's over $9 billion in the superannuation account of the Government of Canada at this stage.
He goes on to say:
There is a serious question about the fund itself being overfunded and within a very short time the Government of Canada is going to be embarrassed by the amount of money in the fund.
Mr. Speaker, we do not have any of this information. Also there are news reports, one of which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press on January 27, stating:
Lloyd Francis, Ottawa West, said the superannuation fund, by the government's own figuring, could reach $40 billion by 1980 and $1.2 trillion by the year 2025.
This is not the time to be kidding people or misinforming Canadians, civil servants or the opposition about pension funds. This question should be answered immediately. My question has been on the order paper since October 17. I think we deserve an answer today from the parliamentary secretary, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Buchanan) or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) as to why they are refusing to answer the question, so we can properly debate the bill which will be put before us today or tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, we always do our utmost to answer as completely as possible all questions asked and on the order paper. We try to provide as complete an answer as possible, regardless of House business. Therefore I want to assure the hon. member that his question will get the same treatment as all other questions, and that we will try and provide an answer as quickly and as completely as is feasible.

However, as the hon. member is aware, there are hundreds of questions on the order paper which often require lengthy research as almost forty departments, agencies and Crown corporations must be contacted.


A. Daniel McKenzie: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is apparent that this government is supplying some kind of information to one of its own members, namely, the hon. member for Ottawa West, but not supplying us with this information-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I thought the hon. member made that point when he was on his feet a moment ago.



MR. NIELSEN-AMENDED TERMS OF REFERENCE OF STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS

Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: I have a brief point of order in the form of a question to the parliamentary secretary. Now that the House has unanimously passed the motion to concur in the second report on the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, which we did last evening, calling for expanded terms of reference for that committee, can the parliamentary secretary indicate when the government will bring forward those amended terms of reference so as to enable the subcommittee on penitentiaries to be reconstituted and to visit the major institutions in this country?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, we will review the text of the motion passed yesterday by the House and examine it in depth, study it, and see whether or not the committee should be given the authority to re-establish the subcommittee and give the specific mandate to the subcommittee on penal institutions to conduct an inquiry across the country. But beforehand we must examine the contents of the motion passed yesterday evening and the terms of the report adopted by the House; only then will we be able to decide whether the committee ought to be set up and whether it is necessary to do so.
[ English ]


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, 1 ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.
February 7, 1979


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, February 5, 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.
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill C-2, the Health Resources Fund Act, which is to help provinces build better health training facilities. I see this bill as a microcosm of the problems we face in our country today. Here is a bill that came about as a result of a commitment which the federal government made to the provinces some 13 years ago. The particular agreement has another two years of life left in it. Before the time limit expired, the government withdrew its commitment and said, "We are going to terminate it before it is finished". That is a microcosm of the problems we face in the country today.
Yesterday the first ministers completed their meeting which was held just across the street from Parliament Hill. It was evident from watching and listening to the proceedings that one of the greatest problems we face today is associated with trust. The Canadian public has no confidence in the government because it has had too many successive agreements with provincial governments which have been broken before the ink dried. Perhaps the government can justify itself and say that the life of the agreement has been almost spent. Nevertheless, it is the principle of the thing. As the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) pointed out, the government unilaterally breaks agreements and cuts off the funding to the provinces.
Because of this example, when a provincial minister of health enters into any new agreement with the federal government, he becomes somewhat gun shy. That was evident on television yesterday when we watched the first ministers taking part in their discussions. The fundamental problem was that we cannot accept the word of the government at face value. We do not know how long an agreement will last. Will the government unilaterally cut off an agreement when it sees fit? Once the government has received what it wants out of a bargain, will it cut off its share of the funding? It is a typically centralist view of the government that it will establish a
Health Resources Fund Act
program because the omniscient central government knows best what should be happening across the country. It knows what the health standards ought to be in each of the provinces. Thus, the government designs a policy for the provinces, helps to fund it, and after a few years when the provincial governments are depending upon that funding and are hooked, unilaterally the federal government withdraws. No provincial government wants to enter into agreements of any kind with the federal government when that happens.
Having seen what the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) tabled in the House, naturally I was very interested in the speech she made in Vancouver. I have a copy of the minister's speech which was made on January 16, 1979 to the Association of Professional Economists of British Columbia. It is entitled: "The Prophets of Doom are Wrong". The last paragraph on page one reads as follows:
A favourite expression of the prophets of gloom and doom is "conservative backlash". Okay, let's look at this idea. The truth is that people don't like paying taxes, and when they do pay them, like to see that the money is well spent. So far, so good. That's as it should be. But people do not want us to cut down on government services, and in particular they don't want us to cut back on health and welfare benefits. On the contrary, Canadians welcome each new move to improve these benefits. I have heard this not once but hundreds of times from people across the country. What Canadians are saying loud and clear is that they have confidence in the future of this country. The difficulties of these past few years have not diminished their pride and compassion.
I should like to underscore the following sentence:
But people do not want us to cut down on government services, and in particular they don't want us to cut back on health and welfare benefits.
That is what the minister said in Vancouver, but she did not tell those economists that legislation cutting back on health research programs in the provinces had been tabled in the House. The minister cannot have it both ways. She should have said in Vancouver the same thing she said here. The minister's distemper is showing somewhat, and I do not blame her; but at least she could do the House and Canada a service by being consistent in her statements.
At page 2 the address continued:
Some of the blame for this current of reactionary hysteria has to be taken by the official opposition in parliament.
I want to remind the minister that it was not the official opposition which tabled this bill. The official opposition did not cut off the $83 million to the provinces. The official opposition did not make the announcement last August 1 which led to this legislation. Yet the minister wants to blame the official opposition for the legislation. The minister continued:
What makes the opposition's role troubling is, first, that they are highly visible, and second, that I don't think they are being completely candid.
I suggest that is the pot calling the kettle black. I remind the minister that perhaps one of the functions of the opposition is to be highly visible, especially concerning issues such as this one when the minister is not dealing candidly with Canadians. A few months from now when the minister is on this side of the House, she will know what it is like and she will do the same thing.


Mr. Danson:: We will have a majority.
February 7, 1979

Health Resources Fund Act


Benno Friesen: The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson) will be dancing to another tune in a few months.
At page 6 of the minister's address, this appears:
Poverty isn't as blatant as it was when I taught school in a poor neighbourhood in Montreal. But it is there all the same. When medical researchers looked into conditions-
Because of the legislation being brought forward by the government, very soon there will be no medical researchers in Canada; they are going south. In fact, doctors are leaving my constituency and going to Portland because they want some freedom in which to operate; I do not mean that as a pun. Canada now places something like fourteenth among western countries in its commitment to any kind of research, yet the government has introduced more cutbacks. The minister will not have to worry very long because there will be no medical researchers left in the country. The address continued as follows:
When medical researchers looked into conditions in a single poor school district in Montreal a short while back they found that 21 per cent of the kids were retarded in physical development, 28 per cent retarded in physical-mental co-ordination, 39 per cent had family histories of diabetes and 20 per cent had family histories of tuberculosis. These are things you can measure scientifically, but there are harder to measure troubles for poor kids ranging from violent crime to depression to early death or suicide.
I agree that those are problems requiring attention. Pray tell, why is the minister cutting back funding which would provide for greater medical research in the province of Quebec? Such research would help the people who are facing the crises to which the minister referred. The illogical position in which the minister has placed herself staggers the imagination. On the one hand she said that we have inhuman medical problems in the schoolyards of our provinces. On the other hand she said that the government will cut back on medical research funding to the provinces. This cutback means that the provinces will not be able to provide the necessary health services to reduce illnesses.
At page 6 the last paragraph reads as follows:
The government did not feel it could wait for better times to take action. We began with the knowledge that the three major federal programs for children were weighted in favour of upper income families. These programs-the family allowances, child tax exemptions, and the $50 tax credit-actually brought more benefits to families with incomes of $50,000 than to families earning less than $5,000.
The money diverted from the federal coffers to the provincial coffers to be invested in medical research became somewhat anonymous. One really could not identify which dollars were federal, provincial or from private industry. There was not enough of a visible label for people to identify this as money coming from the federal government.
As the minister said, the government could not stand idly by, so rather than having that money come from the federal government to the provinces anonymously the government found a way by which it could be identified as coming from the Liberal government. What the government did was cut back on the family allowance from $28 to $20 and institute a child tax credit program. Now every family in the country

knows when it gets that $200 cheque, or the $20 a month, not computing the amount on their little pocket calculators and, therefore, not realizing they are getting no more than before, that this money is coming from the federal government. The government hopes they will show their gratitude to the federal government at the next federal election now that the unanimity has been erased. People in Quebec, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, P.E.I. and Newfoundland will know when they receive these cheques, supposedly to help with their medical problems, that the money is coming gratuitously from the federal government. I know the people of Canada are sufficiently sophisticated that they will know this is an attempt to buy them, and they will not allow themselves to be bought in that way. They will just not allow that to happen.
I recall that just a few weeks ago, before the Christmas break, the minister had an interchange with the hon. member for Athabasca regarding health services for Indians. She said that Indians were not going to lose any of the medical benefits to which they were accustomed. I happen to know that if you go to some of the ridings in British Columbia you will find that native Indians have indeed lost some of the medical services to which they have been accustomed. I know that clinics have been shut down because of inadequate funding. Because these clinics now do not have sufficient staffs, this department is flying nurses into the areas. Given the kind of weather they experience along the course-


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask whether the hon. member is speaking of Bill C-2 which cancels two years before its end the health resources fund which has been used to a degree greater than 88 per cent in British Columbia. It has nothing to do with medical services. I want to put on record the fact that no medical services were ever cut in British Columbia or in any other place in the country.


An hon. Member:: He doesn't know what he is talking about.


An hon. Member:: Except for Indians.


Monique Bégin: No, that is not true.


Benno Friesen: I notice that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is getting her prompting from the Minister of State (Environment) (Mr. Marchand). Obviously she was occupied in trying to make sure the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) received enough help to get re-elected, and now that she knows that is not going to work she has entered into a discussion with that minister and is taking his prompting in order to enter into this discussion. I should like to point out that I am not talking about the province of British Columbia; I am talking about the responsibility she has to provide medical services at those clinics serving Indian reserves. That is not the responsibility of the province of British Columbia, it is the responsibility of her department. She has cut back on that funding and is flying nurses into those clinics which ought to have full staffs. Given the weather conditions along the coast, pray tell how dependable that kind of service is at those clinics.
February 7, 1979

Let me give one illustration. The hospital at Bella Coola was condemned four years ago. I was there a couple of years ago and some of the concerned people living there showed me that hospital. The United Church of Canada started that mission many years ago and performed wonderful and valiant services in the area. That hospital is staffed by people with a kind of pioneer spirit who like that frontier work. They are committed to helping the people. However, the hospital building has been condemned for four years. The minister says she has not cut back on the services to these people.
The hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. Pearsall) is not in the House, but he has not been running to their aid. The minister who is now promoting herself as the "minister of professional sports" has not been coming to the aid of these people. This hospital is understaffed and the people are not being looked after, yet this minister is content to cut back on these funds and this kind of service, leaving these people unattended.
There are people in my riding who can well use the research money provided by this fund. Let me name two of them. The Variety's Treatment Centre for Children, is a tremendous facility that is funded through the efforts of the people in the lower mainland. There are in the neighbourhood of 300 families whose children are being helped and given treatment in this very beautiful facility. These are children with cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy and so on. This centre is not getting the kind of income tax break from this government it deserves in order to help those children. This Variety's Treatment Centre for Children could certainly use more research money in order to provide better treatment, yet the government wants to cut back on research facilities of this kind.
We have another facility, namely, the Seagull Centre. It uses a relatively new technique to help paraplegics and quadriplegics with motor problems. A machine has been designed that helps in a mechanical way to get the limbs of these people in motion. By this method it is possible that they can again become workers through the reduction or elimination of their paralysis. Several groups working in the lower mainland are using this method in their clinics. If the federal government were to continue funding in this field of research, hopefully help could be provided to these people who suffer from paralysis in their legs and/or arms. The minister is really not doing any service at all to the people of Canada by cutting back on these funds.
Let me go back to what I said at the outset. This problem is one that involves not just funding, although that is a very important and immediate concern. This problem is one that involves trust. How many times do we have to come to this government asking it to live up to its commitments? This agreement was supposed to continue for longer, but this government is unilaterally cutting back on funds, breaking its agreement with the Canadian people. That is the problem we face in this country, and that breach of faith is well illustrated and documented by the legislation we are debating today.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate today to touch on an area which in the
Health Resources Fund Act
past has not received the attention it deserves. I welcome the opportunity to bring some of our problems to the attention of members in this House.
Let me make a prediction. I suggest that 20 years from now there will be an older group of members in this House of Commons than we see today, because Canada's population at this time is an aging population. I say this because last Sunday in the town of Penetanguishene I attended a birthday party for a man named Michael Asselin, who was 95 years of age. He met me at the door. He is a very capable fellow and speaks both English and French, but mostly English. I was amazed at his wisdom. He had been raised in that area, was still able to walk and talk and he said to me that he still liked to dance with the ladies. This is the type of individual we are running into today.
As a matter of interest, it so happens that this man's forebears fought at the battle of Hastings in the Norman conquest of 1066, and a tombstone to a Lord Asselin can be found in England today. This gentleman grew up in French surroundings in the area of Perkins Field and Lafontaine. At various points in his life this man was a councillor, the reeve of his township, a warden of the county and the secretary-treasurer of his riding. He ran again for the position of reeve at age 78. People felt that he was too old, but he got elected and performed one of the best jobs as reeve ever done in that riding.
After that birthday party I went back to my home town of Orillia to the Free Methodist Church there and attended the celebration of two people, one who was 90 years of age and another who was 93 years of age. They were both walking around and shaking hands with the guests. I tell these stories to illustrate the point that people are living longer and healthier because of the prevention of infectious diseases in their youth or middle age.
I would like to go back to the turn of the century to further illustrate my point to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin). There were two major scientific events before the year 1900, the breakthrough by Pasteur who found that organisms cause disease, and Lister's invention of antiseptic therapy in surgery. His carbolic spray cut down mortality.
In those times doctors came to the house, sat by the bedside and brought comfort and many times spiritual help, faith, hope and courage to people for the future. In that way they raised their patient's hopes psychologically in the hope that they would recover from their illness. The doctors in those days knew their patients intimately. Today the doctor walks into a ward accompanied by para-medical personnel, stops at one patient and gives him an examination, talks about him and then goes on to the next. There is no real contact with the patient.
In earlier days we also had infectious diseases such as scarlet fever, diphtheria, pneumonia, pernicious anemia and diabetes, which were rampant. I am sure that many doctors in this House have never seen a case of pernicious anemia. These

February 7, 1979
Health Resources Fund Act
were the diseases which killed in the early 1900s. Infections were the big killers up to 1935. If hon. members would like to take time out and are feeling a little spiritual and thinking about what may happen to them, I suggest that they go through old cemetery. What they will find are the tombstones of whole groups of children who died from diphtheria or infectious diseases simply because doctors had nothing to offer them.
The first diphtheria antitoxin used in the province of Ontario was in 1905. There were big families at that particular time. I can recall a family of 13 children, five of which died from diphtheria. That was the tragedy of those days, to see these infections hit whole communities. A similar disease was scarlet fever, but fortunately they developed antitoxins and from there they developed toxoids. We were well on the way to wiping out infectious diseases.
The discovery of insulin by Banting and Best in 1924 saved the lives of many young children who would have died before their twenties. I knew a young doctor by the name of Gilchrist who had diabetes in his youth, but went on to medical school and became an authority on that very disease. Two scientists by the names of Minot and Murphy at the University of Chicago discovered the cause of pernicious anemia, which was vitamin B-12. After that there was one discovery after another. Sulfa drugs were developed and used to control streptococcus. Penicillin was discovered and first used during the war in 1942. It was discovered quite accidentally from a mould.
This story of the field of medicine is intensely fascinating, and if I had the time I would tell some of it to hon. members, but time does not permit me to do so. There is the story of the golden antibiotics and what they did to curb pneumonia and other diseases. The mortality rate from pneumonia in the early 1940s was approximately 25 per cent. In most of the cases it was the breadwinner who perished, fellows who were out roughing it, leaving behind a widow with four or five children and no source of income. Today, however, pneumonia is considered a secondary disease with a mortality rate of between 3 and 5 per cent.
The next major disease was polio. It was found that it was an infectious virus carried by elements of the environment. It was very interesting at that time to note that the cleaner one became, the more paralysing polio became, particularly to people between 20 and 30 years of age. I saw many people die with respiratory paralysis before the development of the iron lung. I saw it in epidemic proportions. I can remember seeing a young girl being examined and the doctor saying not to turn her over because she would not be able to breathe. She died from respiratory paralysis.
The sadness and tragedy of all this was cured because of the research which was put into polio; and it returned millions of dollars of dividends on every dollar which was spent on it, so let us have no argument on that score. I know the minister will take this all to heart and immediately start hunting for more research money.

Now here we have a group of younger people coming around and they are getting older. Then we found out a new thing. We were running into chronic diseases. We were running into coronaries, we were running into cardiovascular disease, we were running into strokes, and those are disabling or total. We were running into maturity onset diabetes and many other diseases, arthritis particularly. Those were things that were crippling people in their fifties with a great deal of knowledge. I have learned one thing in getting old, and I thank the Lord for that. I remember that when I graduated at 31 I thought I had the world before me and knew it all, only to learn at my age that I know less and less. This is something we must keep in mind.
So here we have all these people with cardiovascular and chronic diseases. I do not want to make reference to anybody in the Chair, but you will know, sir, about cardiovascular surgery and the good it has done for thousands of people across this land, enabling them to go back to work and take their place in society, receiving pay for it and paying taxes, not only into the pension plan but to the government to keep things going and help the people who are less healthy. This is what we are doing with the research funds we have had to date.
But we have only begun, because our aging population today will bring about the need for increased care. Today there are well over two million people in Canada over the age of 65, and by 1990 there will probably be three million. Those people will go on pension. They will be drawing old age pensions but there will be a smaller group of people in the work force to pay those pensions. Here we come back to our problem. What we have to do is educate a new group of doctors who will be trained in the difference and the clinical values of chronic disease and how this can be handled. I hope the minister appreciates how important and necessary it is to train geriatric doctors who will understand these illnesses among people who are 50 years of age and over. I shall not go further into this aspect because I do not have time but there are a lot of differences between symptoms presented by a person between 55 and 75 and those of people aged 25 or 35 or 40 or 50. I could give a long list of differences which exist.
We have trained doctors who really do not relish the idea of looking at that old patient lying there in a bed who is crippled, who cannot move, who maybe has suffered a stroke. Maybe they need some treatment. Maybe they need physiotherapy. But it always seems to me that this is the case no matter what hospital I am in. I noticed it in my own clinic; there was only one doctor besides myself who made and enjoyed calls in general on these patients.
The government goes along with this because it says once a patient is chronic he does not need so much medical care. So the doctor knows sooner or later he is only going to be able to call on those patients once a week, or charge for it. I notice that calls are down because psychologically that doctor does not want want to picture himself thirty years hence, nor does the nurse. The person who is in the health care field looking after the cleaning or the serving of food does not want to stay too long with an old patient who is declining in health. They do
February 7, 1979

not want to face the fact that some day they themselves may be in that chair or in that bed.
That is why I am saying to the minister, for heaven's sake, let us get on and provide these doctors who will be trained in the skills of recognizing what these chronic diseases are and preventing them as far as possible so that they can remain in the work field. I have seen people with coronary bypasses. I have a woman now who is 75 and who has had three heart operations. Just four years ago she quit being a private secretary. You can understand, Mr. Speaker, the contribution which was made there in the field of medicine and in the field of research. But the big research field is in the field of geriatrics. When you have three million people over the age of 65 you have a lot of people, and you have to consider also that some of those people will have to retire through illness because we have not learned to cure them or restore them to the work field. I want to say to the minister that we have those things. First, we have the homes and the hospitals. Right now the governments of the provinces are saying: we do not have enough money to pay for acute care, for chronic care, so we are going to make the chronic care patient in Ontario pay $9.50 a day.
We have a national health scheme which originated right in this Chamber, and how in the world they can tack that charge on in any province while the minister sits here and allows that type of thing to be done is beyond me. When this scheme was brought in, it was supposed to be for the poor who could not pay. There is something wrong with the conscience of those who do not rise up and rebel and say, no, this is not a national health scheme. If they are not going to do it, then change it so that people may know.
If the minister, has a copy of Medical Education in Geriatrics, I want her to take a look at it because on page 2 it says:
From the federal level, an expression of interest in the development of specialty training programs and specialty standards be conveyed to such bodies as the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, the Quebec College of Physicians and Surgeons and the College of Family Physicians of Canada.
I should like the minister to listen to this recommendation:
From the federal level there should be developed the means of providing funding support to some faculties of Medicine to develop as training centres for geriatrics-
It also says:
While recognizing that some progress has been made, nonetheless the statement of the special committee of the Senate on aging made in 1968 that 'A serious bottleneck in the provision of health services for old people interested and trained in this field' is still applicable-
We must never dispense with that sentiment, Mr. Speaker. It brings a little common sense to some things we do here which are not done right. The shortage of personnel interested and trained in geriatrics is still applicable. This dilemma relates to both the undergraduate and postgraduate levels of medical education. Indeed, somehow the value of the system must be revised so that the care of the chronically ill will be as rewarding as the cure of an acute condition.
Health Resources Fund Act
I want to refer to the other place. In particular, Senator Croll has done a tremendous amount of work in the Field of aging and humanities, along with other senators. Approximately 20 years ago it was proposed that instead of taking a person's calendar age we should consider his physical and mental age, and people who are physically and mentally able to work should be given the opportunity to carry on. Labour unions as a whole were against that proposal but I think they will eventually reverse their position when it becomes evident that it will be necessary to do so. These labour unions said the proposition was 20 years ahead of its time, that the pill would not have that much effect because not that many people were using it.
It is interesting to note that this subject has been brought up and spurred on by the American Geriatrics Association to the point where a bill has either been passed or is in the process of being passed which will allow people 65 years of age and older, found to be physically and mentally fit, to carry on until they are 70 years of age. This is applicable to the labour classes. In the academic class the bill has gone further by saying that people can carry on as long as they are physically and mentally fit until the age of 90, which brings to mind the man of 95 who was so bright and of whom I spoke earlier. Look at the additional taxation the United States will receive by allowing these people to work.
I know of a medical teacher who retired because the clinic rules were such that retirement was mandatory at age 65. This man was the biggest workhorse I have ever seen. I have seen him start operating at seven o'clock in the morning and carry on until seven o'clock at night. I said to him once: "You are worse than a farmer", and he replied: "I was raised on the farm". At the time he retired he had a pension of $16,000 per year which was quite ample 25 years ago.
In another state because of retirement the seat of professor of surgery was vacant. However, it was tragic that on his way to take up his post the man who was hired died of a coronary. My friend, Pemberton, had been retired for a year at that point and was distraught because he was not working and had decided to do a little general practice, which he did for a short while. In the meantime the clinic knew that my friend was available and even though he was over 65 years of age they said they would hire him if they could find no one better who was younger. He was hired and his post was to be of a year's duration. The year stretched into six years and in that time his salary was in the neighbourhood of $50,000 a year. He was a great man, and I have many fond memories of him. One day I asked him if he liked working this way and he said that it was not for the money he received because the government took almost half of it in tax. He said it is the fact that he was contributing something to this world that had given him so much.
In conclusion, I want to say to the minister that geriatric chairs should be established across Canada. The province of Saskatchewan has one and there is one at the University of Western Ontario. Other universities are contemplating them. These were established not through any effort by the govern-
2992

February 7, 1979
Health Resources Fund Act
ment but through the universities themselves. Canada is poorly equipped to deal with geriatric medicine and I want to see some action taken by the minister. I know she has a conscience. I am sure that when she looks at this dilemma and realizes how serious it is she will see that students must be trained in this field. If the minister needs further proof of this great need, all she has to do is visit the University of Ottawa and the faculty there will tell her that the need is vital. Not only do we need students for the future but we need them right now. If the field of geriatrics is not expanded immediately, this country will be in a jam financially because of the overwhelming burden of pensions. For the sake of humanity, for those suffering, for the prevention of illness, not forgetting people who are in homes and hospitals often not even thought of, everything must be done to prevent disease, enabling people to stay in their own homes, to keep working as long as they have the desire and the physical and mental ability to do so.
[ Translation]


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, on reading this bill I thought at first glance that it might not be important; but I am always astounded by the craftiness of this government, the cunning it shows in introducing those various bills. When it introduces a bill of secondary importance, or even a meaningless one, it brings it in voluminously wrapped, using many words that often mean very little; but when time comes to introduce a resounding bill, that often harms the people, it assumes a more modest or even extremely modest form. Well, I think that is what we are being presented with here today, with this eight-line bill which reads as follows:
No payment shall be made under this Act in respect of any cost incurred in respect of a health training facility unless payment of a contribution toward the cost thereof was authorized by the Minister pursuant to subsection 4(1) or 5(1) before September 9, 1978.
So, Mr. Speaker, here we are considering this very small bill, as I said a few moments ago. Some hon. members have talked about it this afternoon. I listened to most of them. Some have viewed it from the medical point of view, like the speaker before me, but I wish to stress the financial aspect of the bill because everyone knows that without money it is useless to talk about medicare. But this bill, Mr. Speaker, although it is a small one, has much value to the government because it will allow it to keep millions of dollars which normally would have gone back to the provinces.
The government pursues its war against the provinces with a pruning knife and that is precisely what I want to draw to the attention of the public. Federal-provincial agreements! What does this government do about them? It ridicules them. When it concerns joint financing agreements unanimously endorsed by the provinces, the federal government unilaterally decides not to respect them. I wonder where such dictating will lead us, Mr. Speaker.


André Ouellet: You can't be serious!


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: I am quite serious!


Monique Bégin: It is a federal legislation and not an agreement with the provinces.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: The provinces only have to yield-


André Ouellet: The person who wrote your speech did not know what he was talking about.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: I wrote it myself, Mr. Ouellet, I do not have a secretary as you have to write my speeches, I take down my notes.


André Ouellet: It shows, because you are entirely on the wrong track.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: The provinces can only yield to the federal government and say: "Thank you, master for what you were kind enough to leave us." This is what the present Prime Minister calls federalism. It is promising for the future of Canada, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister basically wants a united Canada, but in practical terms he wants a single Canada. He has therefore decided to cut off all provincial channels which he considers a threat to that unity. He wants to despoil the provinces so that they will have to crawl before the almighty federal master to survive. For over ten years, we have painfully been on the warpath and the invader is carrying on his forays into the provinces. Honour, a given word or even the signature on contracts, everything is violated. Unilateral decisions are law.
This bill is another proof of the will of the government to dominate the provinces. They may well shout, protest, claim their rights, but it's no use. The Prime Minister replies that we need a strong federal government we need to establish a bureaucratic dictatorship and he does so by means of the so-called federalist system. Of course, the provinces did count on that agreement. Indeed, this two-year agreement with the provinces was designed to help them plan their spending in medical research and in the upgrading of premises. It should be recalled, Mr. Speaker, that we are not against the federal government withdrawing from joint programs or from agreements signed by both levels of government. On the contrary, we have favoured and claimed that for years and we would be most happy if the government ever decided-as the province of Quebec requires-and I quote La Presse from February 6, 1979:
Mr. Lazure asks Miss Begin to transfer the entire jurisdiction of social security to the provinces.
In short, let the federal government get out of Quebec's business on the only condition we agree to, that the federal government give back corresponding taxation points to the province.


Monique Bégin: And the child tax credit.
February 7, 1979


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: In other words, the day the federal government will once and for all get out of provincial jurisdictions, it will necessarily have to give back all the direct taxation items it has taken from the provinces under false representation. Besides, those were the very expectations of the former Liberal prime minister, the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, who had told us when we were commending him for having cancelled several cost-sharing programs and given back the corresponding taxation points to the provinces, that if he still were prime minister for a few years there would be no more of those programs and therefore we would fully recover the direct taxation, and that there would be no more of those joint programs I have always described as many links to make the provinces dependent on the federal government which had managed to hoard on a silver plate all rights to direct taxation. Unfortunately for all the provinces, Mr. Pearson had to resign, and unfortunately again for the province of Quebec, Mr. Trudeau became Prime Minister, and under his administration joint programs have become the order of the day.
This bill brings back to memory those great many cost sharing programs that turn out to be more and more the creatures of the federal government which decides everything without consultation, particularly through Bill C-2. Apparently the federal government is trying to do away with provincial participation in medical research because it no longer believes in confederation but ony in one Unitarian state. However, it will have to meet its commitments under past agreements. If it wishes to ignore them entirely, and make them void by a single stroke of the pen, as though the provinces' opinion did not matter, it should at least be honest enough to return to the provinces the tax points owed to them. I suggest this would at least be logical. One can readily understand that the central government asked for and received the power to collect taxes on behalf of the provinces. But it still has to fulfil its primary duty which is to comply with the agreements under that great power of taxation.
If they continue the way they have been going for the past ten years they are going to keep on breaking agreements, rejecting all cost-sharing programs, while at the same time keeping 100 per cent of all taxation rights. That will be profitable for the federal government, but not for our provinces. Indeed, the more the federal government refuses to pay its share to the provinces, the more the provinces will be forced to pay themselves the outlays that keep accumulating year after year and the less revenue the provinces will have, since the federal government will still keep the full powers of taxation it borrowed in 1942 while at the same time reneging on all the beautiful promises made at that time.
With such a power of taxation, without obligations in return, it becomes very easy for the central government to penetrate further into provincial jurisdiction on the pretence
Health Resources Fund Act
that the provinces that are not in an area are so burdened by the limitation of the field of taxation that they can no longer cover all the areas under their jurisdiction. That is how provincial sovereignty is being infringed upon through the control of taxation.
Bill C-2 is only the extension of all the legislation passed in the past ten years by this government to cancel the role of the provinces and get its out and out federalism. The government keeps rejecting its past commitments at the expense of the provinces by taking away from them any power of recuperating. Today, the government practices that sport which is dangerous for Canadian harmony in all sectors and the most sinister part of it is that government members who are mainly responsible for the present mess are saying there is a crisis.
The government headed by its ministers is spending millions on inquiries into that famous crisis. They want to know who is responsible for it. I ask the ministers and the Prime Minister to look at themselves in a mirror in order to find out who has really caused that famous crisis. First of all, the cause of that crisis is the lack of communications between the government of Quebec in particular, and the other governments. The federal-provincial meetings have been characterized by reversals, and public discussions. The provinces understandably resent the fact that the central government takes decisions without even so much as consulting them. We now have reached the point when ministers trade insults and call each other robbers and violators. That is not parliamentary language. For example, in an article which was published in a newspaper on February 2, 1979, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) is reported to have referred to the Quebec Minister of Health as a robber! That is not very edifying, Mr. Speaker! And when the Minister says that "sometimes she feels ashamed that she is a Quebecker" ... I am almost ashamed to sit in the federal parliament. This reaction was prompted, of course, by another cut in family allowances.
Another statement related to the Quebec minister's statement in which he denounced a 23 per cent drop in federal family allowances. The family allowances granted by the federal government will drop by 23 per cent, in Quebec as in all other provinces, for every child as of Janaury 1. This is the nature of a bill on this subject tabled yesterday at the National Assembly by Social Affairs Minister Denis Lazure.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) answered him at an impromptu press conference held yesterday in Ottawa. She said: Quebec has lowered to 5 per cent the welfare benefit indexation to get back the $200 annual tax credit granted to families with an income of less than $18,000. According to her Manitoba and Quebec are the only provinces which take into account this tax credit in establishing the rate of benefits. By failing to index the benefits at 9 per cent, as planned, Quebec is stealing from welfare recipients, according to the health minister.

February 7, 1979
Health Resources Fund Act
Well, Mr. Speaker, for the edification of the whole population, here is what the Quebec minister Mr. Lazure said in reply: In deciding, unilaterally, to change the family allowance program, not only did the federal government renege on an agreement that goes back to 1974, but above all, it has singularly made life a great deal more complicated for a whole group of people. I did it with an election in mind, obviously, right on the eve of an election. By reorganizing a family allowance budget, to allow families whose income does not exceed $18,000 claim a child tax credit next April, the federal government penalizes welfare recipients.
Mr. Lazure enumerates the following in support of his contention: The Quebec government, or rather, the parents have to fill out a complex form. They also have to fill out some sort of income tax statement which many of them have never done before. That is true. I support him on that. The federal government threatens to upset the budget of the recipients by sending them a big cheque in April, perhaps in March, or in August, or even next fall.
Others will not get any at all because of the complexity of all that paper work. In April, they will no longer need it to heat their house or buy winter clothes. Criticizing the new program further, Mr. Lazure points out that, when she made a public statement last week, the federal Minister of National Health and Welfare forgot to point out the following: that Quebec is the only province to pay out family allowances, that Quebec is the only province where social assistance payments are automatically indexed on the cost of living. In 1969, that indexation will cost the government $67 million. Finally, Quebec is the only province that has an integrated social assistance program and therefore it is impossible to compare with the other provinces.
Well, Mr. Speaker, these are two opinions I respect, but to any Canadian citizen they certainly cannot be reconciled. There is between them the difference in figures, first in calculations, expressions and particularly the difference between the acts. And when I received the booklet from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), well, I met a lawyer and my accountant, and we looked at it. The lawyer told me: This legislation is so complicated that I think we shall never be able to understand it. As to the accountant, he said: If you take everything into account, the $200 tax credit and the decrease to $20 in family allowances, nothing is changed for poor children. We should-


Monique Bégin: No, it makes $140 more for each child.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: I say that my accountant-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The Chair has some difficulty to understand how the hon. member wants to relate the remarks he is making now to the bill before the

House, namely Bill C-2. Maybe there is some relation to Bill C-2, and I would like to hear it at this time.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Maybe you find the example a little long. I was giving this as an example which, at the same time, was intended to help inform the population-


André Ouellet: The hon. member does not check his information and gives the view of the people on stupid examples.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: But I knew I was beside the question. I cannot go deeper into this matter ... I may do so at a later date because I wanted to ... The examples I give-


André Ouellet: The hon. member's examples do not make any sense.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: When a lawyer tells you he is rather confused . .. The examples I give-


André Ouellet: He must be a Social Credit accountant.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: The minister says the examples do not make any sense. It so happens the example is taken from the minister's publication. If it does not make sense, according to the new Minister of Public Works (Mr. Ouellet), it does for mothers-


Monique Bégin: The hon. member should say that this means more money for mothers.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Of course, the minister says that Quebec mothers may lose some money, but I have something else to tell her. The Minister of National Health and Welfare, like the other ministers, the Minister of Employment, for instance, who has just-and I am only saying this as an introduction, Mr. Speaker-who has just placed 250,000 unemployed on provincial welfare-On one hand, the government takes back benefits from the provinces, as in Bill C-2, on the other hand, it takes directly from-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, when I talk about Bill C-2, they shout that I am out of order. In my opinion, they do not know what subject we are discussing-


An hon. Member:: We do not understand you!


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: It is not surprising that you do not understand. Many others do not understand either. As I was saying, on the other hand, the government cuts back directly the income of senior citizens, as it did in the case of the supplement. Listen to this. By considering the Quebec pension cheques as an income, the federal government is able to reduce its pension supplement by taking 50 per cent of the Quebec pension cheques. This is another way-
February 7, 1979


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please! This is certainly another way, as the hon. member suggests, but I would like to remind him once again that we are now discussing Bill C-2 which concerns authorization for terminating an agreement with the provinces. I invite the hon. member to limit his comments to this issue.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, you allowed the previous speaker to talk about pensioners over 65, as he did for half an hour, and I am talking about pensioners over 65 who need care and money and who have contributed to the Quebec Pension Plan and who receive their cheques from Quebec. Why is this cheque considered supplementary income?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) on a point of order.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, the member who spoke before the Social Credit spokesman has had medical training and he talked about the urgency to train people in the field of geriatrics in Canada. He said that this could have been done if public opinion in the provinces had become favourable soon enough, and this could have been done under the health resources fund which is the subject of the bill now under consideration. He never spoke about the pensions! That is what the hon. member has been doing for some time only to make erroneous statements.


An hon. Member:: Absolutely not.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order please. This is very clear and this is why the Chair left the floor to the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard). He was not interrupted during his speech. Once again I urge the hon. member to limit his remarks to Bill C-2.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I said earlier that some doctors-I did not name them-dealt with the medical aspect and that 1 would deal with the financial aspect of this issue as it cannot be ignored. You need money to have adequate health services. This is why I think that the minister does not understand anything as regards financial matters. She may be an expert on other subjects but I want to refute her theory. When she says that the government of Quebec robs people on welfare I say that the government robs older people of 50 per cent of their pension, the Quebec pension. Is it not true?


Monique Bégin: How much did the province of Quebec get for health?


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Now she recognizes it. She steals 50 per cent of their Quebec pension from older people. We agree on this. I do not want to deny what the minister said and
Health Resources Fund Act
I said earlier that you were right, but it does not mean that one is more in the right than the other and that you can rob older people who need health care.


Monique Bégin: The government of Quebec does that.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: It does not reduce the Quebec pension but the guaranteed income supplement.


Monique Bégin: Quebec pays Quebec pensions.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: No, Quebec gives the cheque and those who get the supplement have their cheque cut by half. I know the situation. Of course, Mr. Speaker, after all those discussions we do not agree on Bill C-2 and even less on the reasons for those cuts. They spend their time cutting programs and I object to that.
Bill C-2 is like a pruning knife. It means a loss for the provinces, Mr. Speaker, and that is what riles me. I am told to stick to the medical aspect of Bill C-2, but I must say that it is not the medical aspect which is important, it is the cutting effect which is important. The provinces are denied millions of dollars to prevent them from taking action in their own field of jurisdiction and as soon as someone criticizes that, Mr. Speaker, they shout. All the Liberal members here are shouting that it is contrary to the Standing Orders. They want this matter to be left untouched. They do not want the people to know the government is stealing 50 per cent from the pension cheques from Quebec. They do not want that but it hurts the elderly people and these same elderly people know it. How dare they blame the Quebec government for suppressing a 3 per cent indexation-


Monique Bégin: It's 4 per cent.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Fair enough, 4 per cent indexation at a time when the federal government steals 50 per cent from the cheques. Ottawa takes the lion's share. It is not 4 per cent but 50 per cent not giving what Quebec expects from the federal government, what it should receive from it anyway, they are going to syphon off from those who are getting money from Quebec in order to put it in the federal treasury. This is what we do not accept and this is what Quebec cannot accept.


An hon. Member:: You do not have any member on the committee.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: There are Social Credit members on that committee.


An hon. Member:: Stealing is a very strong word.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: No, I was not the one who used it first, the minister did.


An hon. Member:: Not in this House.

February 7, 1979
Health Resources Fund Act


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: It was the minister as reported in a newspaper article. I read it. I had to quote the minister's words. The minister used the word "stealing".


An hon. Member:: That is unparliamentary language.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: I did not find it quite parliamentary either, this is why-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. If hon. members want to intervene they should address the Chair.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I realize the hon. member does not agree with the purpose of this bill, but I am afraid his words go beyond his thought when he accuses this government of stealing from Quebec senior citizens because, quite the opposite, we have increased significantly old age security pensions in the last few years. I would ask him to withdraw the term "steal".


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but I only borrowed the terms used by his minister. I would never have used the term "steal" if the minister had not done so herself. And when he suggests-


Mr. Paproski:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe the hon. member said that the people in Quebec had said that the federal government is taking money away from them.


Monique Bégin: You have a lot of imagination.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The minister on the same question of privilege.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Roberval would have this House believe he is using the minister's terms. The minister said no such thing in this House today. And I ask that he withdraw, because to accuse this government of stealing from Quebec senior citizens is both groundless and unparliamentary. I therefore ask him to withdraw.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Firstly, Mr. Speaker, I would withdraw on the condition that the government repay the 50 per cent they have been taking away from senior citizens for some 10 years. But I would first bring the minister back to reality by pointing out it is reported here that, according to the minister, by failing to grant a 9 per cent indexation as agreed, Quebec is stealing from welfare recipients. Those are the words used by the minister (Miss Begin). I would not have referred to stealing had not the minister-


André Ouellet: The minister never said that in this House!


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: But I am sure that if he follows the minister, there will be no trouble at all.


An hon. Member:: We are right, you are wrong!


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Liberals are quite partial. They say that the minister is right but that I am wrong to use the same word. That is not fair, we must have equal opportunity. If the minister can use that word, I should have the same right and yet with more right because the robbery is much more serious and more extended.
Before the Liberals were in power, we remember that Quebec pensions were not treated as income. They have been treated as income only since Liberals are there to siphon off from our pensioners who are receiving a cheque. And you, Liberals, you should support us to return to the old legislation so that Quebec pensions not be treated as income. And I think the minister would agree with me on that point. Well, in concluding, Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: But that is not robbery.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: No, it is finance. That is probably what the minister meant. She should have used the word finance. But since the minister used the word I thought I would be readily understood by the Liberals because they are used to hear the word robbery instead of finance.
Mr. Speaker, as my allotted time is going to expire, my 40 minutes have been used, you should give me an extra 20 minutes, they have taken 20 minutes from my time, Mr. Speaker. You should give me an additional 20 minutes to allow me to conclude my speech.


André Ouellet: The hon. member did not withdraw his words yet.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, anybody knows quite well that needs are ever more pressing in the health field and that the provinces will have to foot the bill themselves. Sincerely, is it not another way to punish Quebec? That happened since 1976, especially since that government is there because they do not like it. For example, if I do not like you, will I spend my time throwing things at you? But it is the Quebec people who have elected that government. Why should we punish it continuously and adopt legislation to cut assistance, to break contracts? They even cut back large contracts, the Laprade heavy water plant, for example. It is the same thing. Cutbacks everywhere to try to weaken Quebec's economy.
At the same time the central government gives tax breaks to multinationals, those monopolies which are heavy party fund contributors. This is theoretically to create more jobs, even though we are well aware that large businesses will use the product of the workers' income taxes to modernize and further reduce the number of jobs. That is why big wheels get more
February 7, 1979

powerful under a Liberal government while ordinary folks just get weaker.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I participate in the debate on the bill before the House in a sense of both sorrow and outrage. Earlier the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said some nice and kind things about the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) with which I agree. There is no question concerning her integrity and desire to improve the lot of Canadians in terms of health care for the aged. She deserves full credit and marks for that. But I question the hon. minister's continuing acquiescence in the priorities of the government and her colleagues. While she may have argued and fought with her cabinet colleagues in caucus concerning restraint being applied to the health resources fund, it seems to me the minister should further attempt to change the minds of her colleagues regarding this legislation. While the minister has been a good trooper in attempting to defend and apologize for this measure, I know her heart is not it.
I am outraged and sorrowful that the minister and her colleagues participated in what I would call a "Proposition 13 syndrome". This mindless pact comes from the Conservative elements in North American society: government is too big, it is spending too much, it interferes too much in our lives, taxes are too high, the government is out of control. It is the restraint policies that are out of control. I never expected to see the day when the hon. minister would be party to such a syndrome or such mindless nonsense emanating from the conservative element in society, smart aleck editorial writers, financial page analysts and so forth.
When analyzing these demands for restraints and cutbacks, one must consider from whom they are coming. One will find that these demands come from the rich, powerful and comfortable. I have not heard any old age pensioners, patients in acute health care beds, veterans, poor people or unemployed say that the government is too big and spends too much money. But 1 have heard such complaints from people who are nicely and comfortably ensconced in $200,000 homes owning two cars, summer cottages and taking winter vacations in California. These kinds of people indicate that the government is too big and its taxes are too high. For any government to accede to such nonsense by placing restraint on health resources expenditures is not only unconscionable, but is giving in to appeals being made to the worst in people rather than the best.
Surely the hon. minister must agree that she should make one more attempt to change the government's mind to its everlasting credit. I see no reason in the government's priorities when displaying restraint on the health of Canadians. The government is cutting $84 million in 1979 and 1980 from health resources funds on the ground of restraint.
The minister said the Government of Canada had a difficult decision to make in applying major traumatic restraint on its own expenditures. I wish the minister would agree-and I do
Health Resources Fund Act
not see how she can fail to-that it must have been more traumatic for her, and everybody else in the cabinet and the Liberal caucus, to hear the government announce an increase in spending just a few days ago of some $400 million, some five times the amount of cutback from the health resources fund, including provision of $18 million to help professional hockey millionaires build places to skate and play their little games. The Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) (Mrs. Campagnolo) tries to justify this by saying they are to be municipally-owned stadiums which will be available to amateurs. I have had some experience of playing amateur hockey with a professional team around, and I know that you can get ice time from seven to eight in the morning or from 11 to midnight, and from midnight until early the next morning. When the professional team wants to use the ice the amateurs and the kids cannot use it. This government can find funds for that.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Why not ask the high-priced players and owners to provide these funds?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is a good suggestion by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski). It would be an excellent idea to have these high-priced players and owners provide their own damned rinks in which to play their games.
What about the announcement of $235 million for the pulp and paper industry? Surely the Minister of National Health and Welfare is not going to hold still for that. She is supposed to knock 84 million bucks from her health resources fund while agreeing to spend $235 million to help an industry that has increased its profits in 12 months from $160 million to $379 million. How can the minister hold still for that? How can any self-respecting Liberal on the government side hold still for that? It is incredible that we have people like the Minister of National Health and Welfare supporting a Liberal government that is implementing Conservative policies. That government not only accedes to the mindless chatter of those who demand restraint and government cutbacks; in its equally mindless desire to clutch and hang on to power it enlarges on those measures. This government has thrown its reputation into disrepute through breaches of faith and word, and its disregard for commitments and agreements with the provinces, beginning in 1966 with the health resources fund.
This program should not be ended prematurely. It should not have $84 million chopped off in its last two years of life. Rather, this program should be extended and enlarged with the provision of new funds, not just $500 million over the next ten years, but $1 billion. There is a great deal yet to be done.
I listened to the words of the learned and fine hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) who emulates the best traditions of a country doctor in this country. He talked about things that need to be done in a field in which he is wise, the field of geriatrics. I agree with what he said in that regard. I only wish he would talk to his colleagues in his own party in a number of provinces of this country. They have failed miserably to make adequate use or take adequate advantage of the

February 7, 1979
Health Resources Fund Act
health resources fund. Their activities in their own jurisdictions belie the words of the hon. member for Simcoe North.
That hon. member should ask the government of Alberta to refrain from charging $4 a day for medical services for people at levels three and four, most of whom are in what the hon. member for Simcoe North would class the geriatrics category. This is the charge in Alberta to those people who spend more than 120 days in health care centres. He should ask that government to stop collecting $5 a day for the admission of an individual requiring an acute care bed. That government should take full advantage of the health resources fund in order to do more research in geriatrics and to provide a greater degree of medical care through a shared program under the provincial and federal governments. Instead of that Alberta is taxing those who can least afford to pay.
I wish the hon. member would talk to his Conservative colleagues in Ontario who are charging $8.60 a day in what they call extended care user fees. My God, this sounds like Otto Lang! The Tories in Ontario call it a user fee, just as the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) says that the user shall pay. In British Columbia another Conservative government charges $6.50 a day for extended care and $5 a day for acute care. The majority of the people who are paying these charges fall into a category the hon. member for Simcoe North would class as geriatrics.
I hope the hon. member for Simcoe North will match his demands of the federal government with equal demands of his Conservative colleagues in power in several provinces in this country, because their performance in some of the richest provinces, in fact in the richest province, has been shameful and miserly. The government of any province as wealthy as British Columbia, Alberta or Ontario that cannot or will not lead the way in health care and health ventures should be ashamed of itself.
Some of these Conservatives, with a capital "C", talk about more restraint and government cutbacks in health care. Some of them have the nerve to call themselves "Progressive Conservatives", which has to be the ultimate contradiction of terms. They propose things like deterrent fees. We experienced that under a conservative Liberal government in Saskatchewan for a number of years. Dr. Beck, a professor at the University of Saskatchewan, studied the effect of deterrent fees. His findings were that families least able to bear the financial burden cut back on the use of the medical care system. According to Dr. Beck, the wealthy were not noticeably affected. This is what all of us who oppose this kind of tax on the sick have been saying for years.
I would ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare to give more thought to what needs to be done in respect of health care and research rather than to cutbacks. The health resources fund should be extended and enlarged. The $235 million for the pulp and paper industry and the $18 million for hockey rinks should be used to extend and enlarge this fund. It should be used to meet needed research in respect of prosthetics, for the provision of community clinics, acute care for the elderly, for research and the construction of new facilities.

We do not have enough dialysis machines for people with kidney ailments who must have their blood regenerated once or twice a week for the remaining years they have before them. People in the medical profession as a result have to make the terrifying decision of who can have access to the insufficient number of machines and who cannot. We have money for the pulp and paper industry with its high profits and for million-naire hockey club owners, yet the government wants to cut off the health resources fund for its remaining two years.
There are new developments in portable dialysis machines which eliminate the necessity of patients having to attend a hospital once or twice a week year in and year out. Several thousands of these machines are needed and, therefore, the provinces should now spend money on the purchase of these machines and for their continued development with the aid of the federal government, which should absorb half the cost through a health resources fund.
The areas of preventive medicine and mental illness need much research, a high portion of bed occupancy in the health care delivery system is taken up by schizophrenics. The health resources fund could aid in the cost of the work needed in this area. I would like to tell the minister that we could do great things for the improvement and care of schizophrenics and that, if nothing else, it would help half the members of the Liberal party and three quarters of the members in the Conservatives party.


Monique Bégin: And all of the NDP.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The Conservative party would like to have it both ways. As my colleague from Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) pointed out with regard to another item some time ago, that party would like to have it both ways. They are like the oldest profession in the world and would like to work both sides of the street. On the one hand they say that there must be cutbacks and restraint, so they pick on the health resources fund; but on the other hand they want to spend three or four times that amount of money on items which have no justification.
Surely the minister will ask her cabinet colleagues and her colleagues in the caucus to readjust their priorities and determine which is the more important-leaving the $84 million in the health resources fund to be spent in 1979 and 1980, or giving $235 million to an industry which has just doubled its profits. That is not dogmatic socialism or party dogma; it is just plain common sense. They must readjust their priorities.
The minister calls the withdrawal of this fund traumatic. Something should be done to ease the trauma. Such a comment indicates to me that she believes it is the wrong decision, because nobody deliberately has a trauma. Why one would want to have a trauma on purpose is beyond me. It is even more traumatic, this decision to end the health resources fund, in light of the spending this government would like to do on unnecessary and unjustified items.
February 7, 1979

February 7, 1979
Health Resources Fund Act
day on extended care patients. Well, that is restraint; they are imposing cutbacks.


Mr. Yewchuk:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) has been sneering at Alberta for being good and rich and praising Saskatchewan-for being bad and poor, I guess. If that is his thinking, let him explain why such large numbers of people are leaving Saskatchewan and moving to Alberta?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: If the hon. member would check the population statistics he would find that such is not the case. But I want to tell him and the natives of Alberta and British Columbia that had it not been for the many good people from Saskatchewan who moved there neither of those places would have amounted to anything.
The fact is that over the last few years in Saskatchewan the population outflow has been reversed. The population has been increasing for the first time since the late 1920s. I do not know whether one can attribute responsibility for that to any party or government, but it does tell one something about where people would prefer to be.
I appeal to the minister to buttonhole a few of her cabinet colleagues. I am sure hon. members of the Conservative party will help keep this debate going until six o'clock, which will give her a chance to change her mind about this bill. After all, ministers over there have already exceeded their objective in connection with cutbacks. They have succeeded without this bill. If it is not proceeded with, they will still be in excess of the objective the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) outlined last September. So they do not need this legislation in order to live up to their commitments about reducing government spending.
I therefore appeal again to the House to reject this legislation. I appeal to the government, to members opposite, and particularly to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. There is nothing wrong about changing your mind if you have second thoughts. You will not be condemned by members of our group if you are big enough to change your mind on this issue. On the contrary, I think you will be applauded by people across this land generally if you withdraw this bill.


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is worthwhile, as an introduction to my remarks, to note a statement by the minister. The hon. lady said:
With the impending introduction of a medical care program and anticipated shortages of health manpower to meet program and population requirements for increased health services, the health resources fund was enacted on July 11,
1966, to run for the period 1966-1980.
Provisions of the act were to offer financial assistance to the provinces and territories in the planning, acquisition, construction, renovation and equipping of health training facilities.
Before addressing myself to the remarks made by the minister and statements made before the standing committee dealing with Bill C-2, it is only appropriate that I point out to the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) that in the Barrett era of British Columbia history, if my memory
serves me correctly, a well-known doctor from New Westminster was appointed to draw up a master plan for medical and allied care for that province. Upon its completion it was a ponderous document indeed. It was studied by people within and outside the medical profession and it had much to commend it. But like much socialist philosophy and theory, it suffered from overkill, so much so that this social document for improvement in the field of health gathered dust on the shelves of the provincial legislature in Victoria. I cannot recall one element of that particular tome being introduced by the Barrett government.


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: I can tell you about all kinds of things.


Robert Hylton Brisco: I would be interested in hearing from the hon. member if he can tell me all kinds of them. Fortunately none was of sufficient significance to have the impact on the province that they are still remarked upon today.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What about dental care for children?


Robert Hylton Brisco: I would suggest to the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre that he address himself to some simple mathematics. I recall him saying that the fee for medical coverage was something like $184 a year in Alberta. That was the figure he quoted-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: For a family.


Robert Hylton Brisco: -for a family. When we translate $184 a year, and he mentioned a family of four, it works out to the enormous sum of eight cents a day. Frankly I cannot see anything wrong with that, particularly in Alberta.


An hon. Member:: It is zero in Saskatchewan.


Robert Hylton Brisco: I know that in Saskatchewan they have a different plan, but times change and governments change. Unless the member is misled, or the House is concerned that the only province which has anything going for it in terms of medical care is Saskatchewan, then I think the member should more fully examine some of the other constraints, such as constraints of environment, population and geography. It is not fair to the other provinces to tar them with a broad brush.
No reference was made to the province of Manitoba. We have a fresh Conservative government there, but the NDP had all kinds of time to establish health care policies. We have not heard a word about that. However, let us return to the substance of the bill instead of debating points between parties here. After all we on the opposition side are opposed to Bill C-2.
In 1966 the prime minister and the government at that time demonstrated considerable foresight in establishing this fund. They must have recognized a need. It is unfortunate they did not demonstrate the foresight to see just what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of today and his wasteful wastrels, in other words his cabinet, would do with the financial state of this nation. If he could have seen that, then probably he would

February 7, 1979

have escalated the sum well beyond its present limits. Instead of establishing it at $500 million, maybe he would have established it at $750 million. Perhaps he would have recognized that galloping inflation would diminish the value of the program. Perhaps too he would have considered additional sums were needed to address the social problems that have arisen as a result of the high unemployment in Canada at this time.
The Pearson government did not have that foresight. It did not have the foresight to see what the Prime Minister of today would do. It did not realize that the Prime Minister in a flight of fancy would travel to Bonn, bungle around and then meander to Morocco, and after having been struck by the sun return to Canada to tell the nation that he was fed up with inflation. What the hell is new? What an outstanding statement for the Prime Minister to make! That statement carried about as much credibility as the Prime Minister's statement about wrestling inflation to the ground. The Prime Minister suffers from a sore back. I do not think he has ever made it. Clearly he never will.
I caught the intervention just now of the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) that the Prime Minister needs a chiropractor. 1 would be delighted to have him as a patient. I cannot say that he would show any immediate response to my treatment; I would rather suspect he would get worse.
The spending of $427 million in the view of the Ministry of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) virtually accomplishes the goal established by the Pearson government. That is not correct. All ministries of this government are suffering from restraint. All programs are suffering from restraint. There are programs which we on this side of the House agree clearly need restraint, but one should not mess around with the health of the nation or its people.
If we could establish a graph of the medical or health care facilities of this nation, that graph would rise from a zero point, or whatever point on the scale one might establish for the year 1966, to a high point in about 1974. From that point on it would stagger; sometimes it would go up and sometimes it would go down. It would go up with the whims of the minister of health in terms of funding the medical research community, and it would drop when the minister decided to extract something from the medical research community. I remember when the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde) discovered $2 million in his pocket for medical research. That graph will now go down and stay down until a Conservative government comes in and changes the ball game. A Conservative government will put the priorities back where they belong.


An hon. Member:: You will never see that.


Robert Hylton Brisco: On December 12 before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs I asked the chairman the following question:
-Dr. Law might tell me whether she believes what has happened in the field of medical research, in the field of treatment for disease, in hospitals or out, as it
Health Resources Fund Act
now stands, could have been entirely predicted 15 years ago. Do you believe the current level of medical expertise in the treatment of disease today, thermonuclear medicine or nuclear medicine, for example, could have been predicted 15 years ago? Yes or no? It is that simple. The answer clearly is no.
Dr. Law: I think no.


Robert Hylton Brisco: No, all right. Therefore, do you feel that 15 years from now or 10 years from now we will be at the same level of medical and diagnostic treatment, expertise, that we are at now, that we are not going to advance any further?
Dr. Law: No.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Therefore, would you not say that it is logical to assume that a government, federal government, would consider seriously the continuation of the type of program that is contained within the provisions of this bill.
At that point the Chairman interjected:
I do not know that Dr. Law would wish to answer that question.
I commented that was all right, but the answer is obvious.
What I am trying to demonstrate here is that in spite of the absence of support from this government, research in all fields of the health community must continue. I made reference to nuclear medicine. We are seeing some astounding advances in that field. Those advances will be made to a limited degree in this country because we provide only a very limited degree of support to the scientific community. The advances will be made substantially in those countries which support the scientific community.
In his speech today the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) dwelt for a considerable time on the subject of geriatrics. He rightfully pointed out that Canadians are living for a longer period of time. There is a desperate need for a more careful and more broadened understanding of the field of geriatrics, as the hon. member for Simcoe North pointed out. The hon. member said in honesty that there are those physicians who feel uncomfortable in the presence and in the treatment of the aged. I can understand that. It seizes their conscience. It is a reflection of the philosophy of today.
When I speak of that, I think of nations such as China, particularly Taiwan or the Republic of China, which carries on with the same philosophy it has had for centuries-respect for parents, grandparents and those most senior in the family. That kind of philosophy has eroded under the communist regime in Red China. It is not appreciated there. That kind of philosophy is in opposition to the state. However, it is still present today in the Republic of China.
That kind of philosophy is also seen in other nations, among other peoples. However, it has rapidly disappeard in this country. As a result, we are faced more and more with the need for extended care facilities, nursing home care and intermediate care. Call it what you may, it deals with the care of the aged and those who are approaching that era of sunset.
These problems are increasing daily. Because of today's society, children are no longer able to cope with their aged parents. They just do not know how. It will take a great deal of time to alter that philosophy. Those kinds of programs will be far reaching, reaching into the next century. We should be thinking of them today. They could well be encompassed in the continuation of this funding and an addition to the funding by means of another bill for an additional $500 million for

February 7, 1979
Health Resources Fund Act
another five, ten or 15 years. At today's prices it would have to be for five years.
There is another area of need that gives me cause for concern. Other members spoke on the subject of care of our Indians. I noticed the interjection of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. She stated the bill did not have anything to do with the provision of medical care in terms of glasses, dentures and so on. That is true. I am not going to discuss that, at least for the moment; I will stick to the bill.
I suggest for her benefit that the minister review an article in the January 4, 1979 Globe and Mail entitled "TB considered serious problem in N.W.T. hamlets". I quote from the article:
Tuberculosis is a serious problem in the community of Rae-Edzo in the Northwest Territories and frustrated health workers are struggling against the disease with only mixed success, a health official says.
At least 48 of the twin hamlet's 1,600 residents are being treated for active tuberculosis and another 102 have been advised to take drugs because they risk developing it, said Dr. Thomas Covill, regional director medical services in the Northwest Territories for the federal Department of Health and Welfare.
Is the minister proud of those statistics? Is she concerned about the fact that for the first time in years we are seeing a rapid increase in the presence of tuberculosis in our Indian communities, a disease which was supposedly wiped out? What is the minister going to do about it? What could this government have done about it if it had taken the opportunity and given direction to the territorial governments, telling them they should be establishing a special clinic or hospital to provide facilities for the treatment of tuberculosis?
What is the tuberculosis rate at Lower Post? Does the minister have any idea how many Indians at Lower Post are afflicted by tuberculosis, how many are carriers and how many are potential carriers? Has anyone in this House heard the minister express any concern about the escalation of tuberculosis among the Indians of Canada? Does the minister know it is a direct reflection of the social conditions in those Indian communities? I have not heard a word from the minister about that. The article continues:
Others who asked not to be named said Dr. Covill's figures are outdated. They put the number of active cases at 57 or more and said more than 300 of the predominantly Indian residents have been told to take anti-TB drugs because of possible contact with the disease.
Dr. Covill acknowledged the incidence of TB is nearly 100 times greater in Rae-Edzo than in most of the rest of Canada. Rae-Edzo is about 80 kilometers northwest of Yellowknife.
In 1977, tuberculosis affected an average of 14.9 of every 100,000 people across Canada. In Rae-Edzo, the incidence was 14.66 of every 1,000.
Not every 100,000.
The situation was the same in the slums of any big city 150 years ago-
I point out to the minister that the situation was the same in the slums of any big city. What is the minister doing about it? Dr. Covill said, and I quote:
"Poor people suffer the disease of poverty and there is nothing medicine can do. Give them an adequate income, decent homes and economic security . .. then you are doing something."

Charlie Charlo, chief of the Rae Indian band and chairman of the Rae-Edzo hamlet council, said at least 20 homes are overcrowded. Many one-room dwellings were inhabited by eight to 16 people.
This is the responsibility of this government, and what has it done about it? It has sat back and waited for the rate of tuberculosis to increase to such a point that it equals the rate of tuberculosis in major cities in Canada 150 years ago, back in the dark ages. The chief said, and I quote:
Some of them may soon move into 18 newly built homes-
What will 18 newly built homes do for a community of 1,600?
But the problem was more complicated than that. Some residents were afraid to ask for treatment and others did not understand they had to take medication for as long as two years rather than just a few days.
Police have arrested known tuberculosis victims who refused treatment.
There lies another problem. If a tuberculosis victim arrested by the police knows his rights, we may well see a problem of confrontation. I agree with the actions of the police, and I am sure all hon. members would; but if a person afflicted with tuberculosis knows his rights, he may well appeal to the Human Rights Commission and say that he was arrested unlawfully.
Because tuberculosis is a communicable disease, it may well be that under certain legislation a person can be held, but he cannot be held indefinitely or until the tuberculosis is cured. At least I do not think so. Are we going to hold people indefinitely so that we can provide medicine for them for two years, and are we going to hold people who come into contact with people who have tuberculosis?
About $84 million is left in a program which has another two years to run. The program could be of enormous benefit in the treatment of tuberculosis, if nowhere else than just among the Indian people in the northern parts of Canada where the disease is most rampant.
I wonder if this government has ever looked at the programs of other nations where indigenous people such as our own Indians are provided with proper hospital care and the level of training needed so that they themselves can treat people of their own race, colour or whatever. Other nations are doing just that. There are provisions for the highest quality medical care and training. Where are the programs here? What kind of program could have been implemented by this insensitive government if it had not tampered with the most valuable element available to anyone, good health?
The minister allowed a few irresponsible people to manage a health care program in Saskatchewan. By her intervention today she demonstrated her frustration with regard to the provision of medical care for our Indians in terms of glasses, dentures and emergency treatment. I respect the minister's intervention because she is right. The matter did not relate directly to the bill, but I think the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) and our critic on Indian affairs were able to tie it in very nicely with the matters contained in this bill. The hon. member for Athabasca said that abuses are not committed by one group of people or any particular level in society.
February 7, 1979

He cited the experience he has daily working in the emergency ward of an Ottawa hospital.
What kind of department would allow a $12 million deficit in one province because of irresponsible management by officials? Let us make no mistake that it is the province of Saskatchewan which has triggered this reaction by this government. This reaction is the result of irresponsible officials who just did not know how to budget. They could not say no to someone who needed a tenth pair of glasses because the person had been in fights every month of the year. They could not say no to somebody who needed a sixth pair of dentures. They could not say no to somebody who wanted a free ride on an aircraft from La Ronge to Regina so that he could go out and get drunk.
I realize that those are the exceptions and not the rule, but the problem was that the people within the departments concerned, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Department of National Health and Welfare, did not have the guts to say no. As a result, in one province the department was $12 million over budget in one year, last year. We have not heard a word from the government about it.
In the committee, as recorded at page 7:21 of the report for December 12, 1978, the minister said the following:
You want a simple answer, why were the provincial ministers not consulted on my cuts, because they are not elected in the federal portfolio; they have no accountability whatsoever of my budget to any Canadian voter and I really resent the suggestion of the member.
In other words, the minister was telling us that she runs the store and nobody else. There is no consultation, just confrontation. The word "confrontation" is not new to this government.
I heard a beautiful example of confrontation on the radio the other day in Victoria. I suppose the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) thought no one would hear or recognize his voice. I suppose he thought no one would be able to come back to this House and say that a parliamentary secretary went on the radio publicly and said that the hon. Tom Waterland, a British Columbia minister, is a fool. That is the kind of confrontation problems we have with this government.
It is no wonder the provinces are upset with this government when an irresponsible remark like that is made by a parliamentary secretary. I do not know whether the parliamentary secretary was speaking for his minister; perhaps he was. I have no way of knowing, but he said that clearly. I heard it with my own ears. God knows, I have heard the hon. member's voice in committee enough to recognize his voice. He received a proper introduction, and he said "the minister is a fool", referring to the hon. Tom Waterland. That was confrontation, and the statement by this minister was confrontation.
However, if the Minister of National Health and Welfare wants to run the store, I wonder why she did not tell the province of British Columbia, with reference to the Shau-ghnessy Hospital for Sick Children, that somebody in the provincial department sent her an application but that it was not signed. I wonder why the minister did not indicate that if the province of British Columbia wanted to qualify for assist-
Health Resources Fund Act
ance, it should have had its application in on time and made sure it was signed, and then the federal government would see that the province got the money.
The minister, instead, was very honest with them in Vancouver in June. She told them: "I will be winding down this program, so get in your applications in a hurry". I give the minister full credit for doing so. She told them in advance what was going to happen. They were slow in responding and as a result there will be a $4 million shortfall for the Shau-ghnessy Hospital for Sick Children in Vancouver to be borne by the taxpayers of British Columbia instead of the money coming from this program. It is correct that at least in part the province is responsible for that foul-up, but, after all, the minister herself said on December 12 at a meeting of the committee that she is responsible, that this is a unilateral effort, that the provincial people should not get involved and should not try to tell her what to do, that she is running the store-


An hon. Member:: "Trying" to run to store.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Yes, as my colleague says, trying to run the store.
I should like to comment on what the minister has had to say, as recorded in the proceedings of December 14 of the Standing Committee on Flealth, Welfare and Social Affairs, at page 8:7. She said:
No, I never said that, Mr. Chairman. My full time is consultation with these bodies. I said that for Bill C-2, I did not consult the provinces, there was no way I could consult the provinces-unfortunately.
She went on to say:
These bodies would have pressed their provincial governments, not the federal government. The initiative rests with the provinces to submit to us whatever projects they want to see us pay for.
That is very true and the minister is correct. But what the minister has failed to do is to reconcile that statement with the other statement she made on December 12 at a meeting of the same committee, when she said that she herself runs the store.
Let me say in conclusion that I will vote against Bill C-2 because there is no question but that health care for Canadians is of prime importance and must continue. I hope that in the next few months we will have an opportunity to introduce our own program which will provide for the concerns that have been mentioned in speeches by members of the House.
I should like to say in closing that my observation of speeches of the minister both in the House and outside the House on television is that at times there is a conflict in what she has said, as was pointed out today by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen). At the same time, in the words of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the minister has demonstrated a degree of concern for the poor people of Canada of which I heartily approve. I feel that the minister does indeed have a heart, but I also feel that she is the unfortunate victim of policies inflicted upon the cabinet by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who, returning

February 7, 1979
Health Resources Fund Act
from Morocco, decided, during a heat stroke, to implement a program of restraint. All of a sudden he was smitten with an attack of nausea caused by the bug of inflation and advised the nation that he is fed up. I am just as fed up as the Prime Minister, indeed more, and because I am fed up I welcome the opportunity to vote against this bill and the opportunity, not too far down the road, to defeat this tired government.


Mr. Jack Hare (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have the opportunity to take part in this debate which relates to the fields of science and research with which I have been involved. I will speak about this some time later and bring out some of the specifics of the scientific aspects with which I have been dealing. But let me say first, as many of my colleagues on this side of the House have said before me, that I sincerely sympathize with the minister in her efforts to cover up the shameful cutbacks in medical funds which are outlined in this bill. She stated in her opening speech on third reading of Bill C-2 that:
There was a need to curtail certain levels of planned expenditures in current and future department budgets for which I am responsible,
Instead of saying this, why was it not stated that a directive has come directly from upstairs to cut the expenses down as much as possible and still come up with a program which will make it look as though this was a government of restraint, about which the opposition has been speaking for many years? Why did the minister not say ths was a directive which came out of some of the fuddle-duddled thoughts of her boss who, as my colleague has just said, saw the light all of a sudden? Was it because, as another hon. member said, Proposition 13 was very much in the air at the time? Or was it just the sunshine of Morocco which gave him a heat stroke at a time when the Queen was visiting the country? Possibly it was these thoughts that were going through his mind which prevented the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) from coming back to Canada and being an honourable host when the Queen visited this country to open the Empire Games.
The point I would like to emphasize in reference to Bill C-2 is not that the government has Finally realized that restraint is important, but that its method of imposing this restraint by sudden, arbitrary cuts reflects nothing else but poor management of the whole situation. This was discussed briefly by my colleague, the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Graff-tey), but allow me to elaborate in a few words.
Back on November 21, in my maiden speech to the House, I spoke on the subject of management in government circles. In addition to some nine years of studies into biochemical and nutritional science techniques, I have been involved, since I left the research field, with business circles for the last 20 years. I pointed out in my speech that good management must apply in government just as in business. The businessman who uses poor management and ends up with deficits year after year ends up in bankruptcy. This is just what is happening to the present government, and this is what is going to happen to Canada.
The restraints being put into effect by the federal government now are very much needed, as they have been over the

last eight or ten years, but the fact should have been realized before this program was started in 1966. The inability to plan and to manage of the Trudeau government is now showing up, and all of a sudden savings must be made and spending cuts applied in a hurry. So we see the band-aid efforts that are in effect. This is the difference between good and bad government. Just as in business, a good government looks ahead and plans on a total financial basis for many years ahead, through wise judgment and planning on the part of wise, conscientious and knowledgeable politicians and administrators. They utilize their experience and wisdom to plan the best methods of achieving optimum results.
A bad government, on the other hand, gives little thought to the future. The plans and the budget are only loosely coordinated. There is little planning and there is little thought for optimization of finances and the ensuing results. This is the present state of affairs as it applies to Bill C-2. The years of poor planning and mismanagement of the present government have caught up to it, and now the country is in deep trouble. It is easy merely to take a pencil and erase figures in the budget for the immediate future. That would provide a turnaround; it is a very simple financial transaction. But even in the planning of such restraint, thought must be given to a method of maximizing the value of dollars being spent. This should have been done by the present Liberal government ten years ago, and it should have been continued as years went by.
At a time when dollar efficiency must be maximized, certainly it is a sign of poor management to cut research dollars. Surely a decrease of 17 per cent in the original research expenditure on short notice shocked those involved in the program. It is relatively easy to cut straightforward spending programs on a short notice basis, but research is an area which requires time to plan the general research program and to train personnel whose backgrounds are precise and specific. Also the necessary equipment for research is complex and costly. This area requires careful study to ensure optimum dollar effectiveness. Optimum returns to dollar expenditure may be realized in the area of research.
The ramifications of the proposed cut in medical funding portends grave implications for the quality of future health care in Canada. Largely, medical research is carried out under the auspices of universities and medical schools where the doctors of tomorrow learn the specialized skills of their professions. There is a direct link between research and practice in the field of medicine. Both are conducted under the same roof and reinforce each other. Any cut in medical funding lowers the standard of medical education which cannot help but result in diminished standards of medical care. The reductions in medical research caused by cuts in government funding in many instances will deprive physicians and surgeons of the consultation they require to perform their functions. In life and death situations good advice is crucial, and such good advice does not come cheaply. Yes, it is expensive but necessary. Fiscal restraint is not justified when the fate of a patient
February 7, 1979

on the operating table is at stake. Practising doctors need the advice of researchers. Without it, severe limitations are placed on their capabilities.
The proposed cuts will have geographic implications as well. In the past, the lion's share of medical research funds went to institutions in Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto. Newer facilities in western Canada, which commenced the development of research units in the past five to ten years, will feel the pinch of such cuts proportionately more than medical institutions and schools in central Canada. Cutbacks will have a devastating effect upon programs which are just getting off the ground.
Canada has lagged behind other countries in the provisions of funds for medical research. For example, the United States spent more than $1 billion in 1978 alone, and that is only its federal government funding. The annual federal allocations in Canada pale in comparison to those in the United States. In 1978, some $63 million was expended by the Department of National Health and Welfare, and now we are faced with a cut in the health resources fund which will reduce medical spending by $84 million.
The bill we are discussing at the present time is a very important one, as spending in medical research and development is a large and significant factor when one considers the total dollar spending of government.
The cuts will have serious effects upon the quality of people in medical schools. Young medical researchers are most attracted to research institutes and universities offering opportunities to conduct high quality research in their areas of precise scientific and medical studies. These opportunities are reduced when medical research funds are cut by government. In that event medical researchers are obliged to look elsewhere, such as to the United States which seems wiser in this area and sees fit to support health research on a scale heretofore unknown in Canada. Is the government prepared to see an
Health Resources Fund Act
exodus of our best doctors and students south of the border? How much will it cost to recoup the actual and potential loss of medical knowledge and progress, which almost certainly will result from an $84 million cut? Is this the beginning of a trend whereby it will be necessary to import medical breakthroughs because the government blocked research money which would allow them to happen in Canada? Will we have de-medicalization as well as de-industrialization? My party has never been more serious in opposing a bill and its ramifications for the Canadian public than it is now.
The rationale of the quick change in thinking of the Prime Minister abruptly altered the lives of a great many Canadians. Perhaps it would not be so bad if it did not apply to the health of individual citizens. In one of the contributions on this side of the House, it was mentioned that the cost of polio research was only $41 million. The savings brought about by this one simple discovery amounted to over $200 million per year in Canada alone. How much money has this $41 million expenditure saved other countries around the world?
Polio is only one example. All members are aware of the efforts of one of Canada's foremost research teams in the years subsequent to the First World War. I am referring to Drs. Banting and Best who discovered insulin at the University of Toronto. Although the cost of that discovery was negligible, it saved Canada a large amount of money because now insulin is available for diabetics. Also it saved billions of dollars around the world.
As it is now six o'clock and I have further material to present, Mr. Speaker, I trust I may continue tomorrow.


Yvon Pinard: Filibuster.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, February 8, 1979