1979-02-02

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 to present a motion for the unanimous consent of the House. I have sent a copy of this motion to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) to give him the opportunity, which I am sure he welcomes, of supporting it in the House.
Action to alleviate the revenue problems of the national capital region and other Canadian municipalities is now past due. Considerable distress has been caused by the failure to update the government's policy on grants in lieu of taxes, particularly in the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton where the decision to send public servants to Hull during the business day has left a large number of taxpaying businesses in serious difficulty. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott):
That the government proceed immediately with the introduction of an act to amend the Municipal Grants Act, and arrange to send the subject matter to the appropriate standing committee, to enable the committee to fully examine the question of grants in lieu of taxes, and hear representatives of interested municipalities.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Yesterday the President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers (Mr. Andras) announced a $235 million giveaway at the taxpayers' expense
to large, profitable pulp and paper companies in Canada. This morning Domtar, one of the recipients of this handout, announced the acquisition of Reed Paper Limited, of Toronto. In view of Domtar's profits of $63 million in 1978, an increase of 136 per cent over the previous year, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House strongly urges the government to rescind the policy announced yesterday of providing large, profitable pulp and paper companies with the taxpayers' money, since the industry is simply using these profits to increase their concentration without providing one additional new job in the Canadian economy.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for debate only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The rape bill, C-52, presented for first reading by the former minister of justice has been abandoned by the present minister. The bill redefined rape for the purpose of ensuring the protection of the victim from cross-examination with reference to past sexual conduct, all of which was requested by all women's organizations in Canada. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling):
That the Minister of Justice produce a new bill assuring the protection of the raped victim from being brutalized by cross-examination and being categorized as a compellable witness by the defence to determine the right to produce such evidence in a voir dire, meaning a trial within a trial, and its admissibility during the main trial to prevent fear tactics against victims reporting the crime in question.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be debated at this time only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
80047-37'/2

February 2, 1979


UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of serious and urgent necessity which involves the blatant misuse of public funds and the pursuit of narrow, partisan political motives in allocating funds on a constituency basis under the current Young Canada Works program. An analysis of the allocations made to the 23 constituencies in British Columbia shows that the ridings represented by Liberal members have received 50 per cent of all funds available to the entire province despite the fact that the allocations cannot be related to or reconciled with youth unemployment statistics. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That the Minister of Employment and Immigration be required to lay before the House immediately, or at least before any disbursement of the S6 million dollars allocated to British Columbia is made, all documentation and criteria on which the allocations are based and that the minister be instructed to cease forthwith this ridiculous practice of political pork-barrelling.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43 can be presented only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the stated aversion of the Minister of Fisheries to the construction of even one freezer-trawler by Canadians for the catching of presently underutilized species, while licensing in 1978 some 300 foreign factory ships and some 190 freezer-trawlers within our 200-mile limit, an action which is decreasing the supply of fish for our inshore fishermen, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the minister institute a policy to progressively decrease the number of foreign factory ships and freezer-trawlers within our economic zone for 1979.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LOTTERIES
Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the terms of Standing Order 43 on an increasingly urgent matter. Since the establishment and expansion of the number of government-operated lotteries has coincided with a general decrease in charitable donations to private sector volunteer service organizations, and considering that there is evidence that lower and middle income groups are disproportionate buyers of those lottery tickets, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for York South (Mrs. Appolloni):
That this House urge the government to undertake a thorough study of the social and socio-economic effects of the lotteries to determine whether they are becoming a voluntary tax aimed at the poor while crippling the ability of private sector agencies to raise sufficient funds to help the same people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PARLIAMENT HILL
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity to seek the unanimous consent of the House to present the following motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Our "lady of the lonely vigil" has demonstrated to all Canadians her deep-felt injustice by her personal sacrifice and attendance at the entrance to the parliament buildings. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That the Prime Minister, as an indication of his humanity to a fellow Canadian, at least provide a hearing as requested so that this beleaguered woman may have her hearing and be allowed to depart.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
February 2, 1979

[DOT] (ms)



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. Has the government arranged or is it attempting to arrange central bank swaps with Germany, Switzerland or Japan?


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


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Has the minister or anybody in his department or at the Bank of Canada had ongoing discussions with the International Monetary Fund with respect to our foreign exchange position?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, Mr. Speaker. The credit of the Canadian government is very good. We have not gone to the IMF. We are having no special discussions with the fund at this moment, and we are not planning any.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as the lines of credit arranged with Canadian chartered banks and certain foreign banks of $5.5 billion are now more than half used up, would the minister indicate whether attempts are being made to arrange any further lines of credit?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.


INQUIRY WHETHER FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATIONS AFFECT BORROWING
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Is the Government of Canada hedging against potential losses on its borrowing because of foreign exchange fluctuations?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I explained the system of foreign borrowings on several occasions before the committee. 1 will appear before the committee next week, and so will the governor of the Bank of Canada, and if the hon. member wishes to ask questions we will be pleased to answer them. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will also attend when the governor will appear before the committee.


James McPhail Gillies: I take it the answer is no, Mr. Speaker. Is the government arranging with the provinces some sort of insurance scheme against losses on foreign exchange fluctuations in order that they can come back into the capital markets?
Oral Questions


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the borrowing by the provinces is done by them. We have talked with the provincial ministers of finance. 1 met with them in December, and there was no such discussion.


James McPhail Gillies: Will the Minister of Finance consider arranging an insurance program so that the provinces can go back into foreign borrowing?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we are not thinking in those terms at all.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Yesterday morning Algoma Steel in Sault Ste. Marie raised its prices once again, the third time in 12 months. It is anticipated that other steel companies in the industry are going to follow suit almost immediately. Such increases will permeate the economy and profoundly affect the cost of living. Since Algoma increased its prices last year by at least 10 per cent and experienced profit increases last year of 209 per cent, will the minister insist that this company roll back the announced increase until it can justify further increases and that only at that time will the government permit a price increase?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will refer that matter to the director of investigation under the Combines Investigation Act to see if there is any possible infraction of that act. I will also refer the matter to CSIP, which is in a better position than I am to analyse that type of increase. Following the receipt of information I will be able to know if I am in a position to take any other action; but I should tell the hon. member that I have no legal authority to force rollbacks. We can jawbone and have discussions with business executives, but we have no authority under the law to roll back.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows well that ministers of the Crown and the Prime Minister in particular have very significant moral authority in a political system. Two United States presidents in recent years, Kennedy and Johnson, called in steel industry heads under similar circumstances, requested rollbacks and got them.
Considering that the workers involved at Sault Ste. Marie received increases of only between 7 per cent and 8 per cent, below the increase in the cost of living, last year, and considering that the profit figure for Algoma is up to 209 per cent and it is now going through with a third price increase in a year, does the minister not think it is time to stop referring such increases? The minister has dealt with food prices, lumber prices and Bell increases in the past. It is time to stop referring

February 2, 1979
Oral Questions
increases to committees for investigation and to take direct action to stop increases.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, before we take action I think we should be certain of the grounds on which we act. It is not as if we are referring matters to committees. I did not say that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: Of course, the New Democratic Party often acts without thinking or checking facts, but we do not do that. I said that these are serious matters, that I will check out the information, and if it is appropriate to do so I or one of my colleagues will talk to these executives and ask them to act in a reasonable fashion.


John Edward Broadbent: Two days ago the minister suggested-and I did not raise this as a question of privilege although it would have been permitted-that my statistics were wrong. A colleague of his many months ago said we were wrong when we pointed out there was hidden unemployment in this country, and not many months afterwards another department confirmed that what we had to say was the truth. If the minister has an accusation to make, I should like to suggest that he make it in the House; but short of doing that, will he take action on behalf of the consumers of this country and on behalf of the workers whose wages and incomes are being held down and have been held down under the controls program to ensure that there is some economic justice, instead of making little speeches against the opposition?


William Warren Allmand: As I said before, Mr. Speaker, we are willing to take action, but unlike the opposition, unlike the NDP, we do not believe in knee-jerk reactions every time something happens. When we act, we want to act on a sound basis. I believe that these price increases are serious and we will take action, but it will be action appropriate to our authority.


An hon. Member:: Lots of talk, a great heart and no guts.


William Warren Allmand: You have neither.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture.
Apple producers in the Quebec area have experienced losses in the sale of their product during 1977 and 1978. Can the minister tell the House whether he has received representations from that organization asking him to appeal to the Agricultural Stabilization Board so that they be granted compensation for 1977?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, many members have made representations to me on behalf of apple producers in the province of Quebec, some as late as this week. I am happy to say that the stabilization board's submission was approved yesterday. This amounts to 1.95 cents per pound, because of low prices and the poor climatic conditions they have had for colouring of the apples, etc. These apples did not reach the grade enabling them to go into the normal market. Many of them were used for apple juice and cider, and the competition from the low priced apples from across the border in the United States made it impractical for the producers to carry on an economic operation, so we saw fit to stabilize their apple prices for that year.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: In view of the minister's intelligent reply-


Mr. Lapointe:: As usual.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: As usual. May I ask, if the problem was definitely settled yesterday, in how many weeks apple producers can expect to get a monetary settlement as a result of yesterday's decision?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the applications are available through our Quebec regional office, the fruit and vegetable division of the food production and marketing branch of my department. These applications are available for producers to fill in, and as soon as they are filled in cheques will be sent out to them as soon as possible. The quicker they receive the applications, the quicker they can send out the cheques.


FINANCE
Mr. Robert de Cotret (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. At what exchange rate will the government consider stopping to borrow abroad?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we are allowing our dollar to float just now and we do not intend to change our policy. I have already explained on a number of occasions that we are now borrowing abroad because the provinces, municipalities and corporations which normally do borrow abroad have reduced their borrowing, and we have decided to take their place. Whether it is a federal, provincial or municipal government which is borrowing, the result is absolutely the same on the exchange market.
February 2, 1979


INQUIRY CONCERNING EXCHANGE RATE
Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question. Could the Minister of Finance indicate whether the purpose of a major part of his borrowing is to stem the outflow of Canadian capital?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the situation as to the outflow of Canadian capital is not more difficult than it was over the past few years.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers. Yesterday he announced with great fanfare massive government infusion of funds to brighten the future of the bleak forest converting industry. Unfortunately the only bright part of the interview was the lights shining on the minister, because they obscured the key phrase in the minister's statement which indicated that the money will come from a gradual redistribution of expenditures of existing and future DREE agreements. Is the minister able to tell us today which of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion programs will be affected and thrown into this shell game? What regional shifts will take place to accommodate the minister's new scheme?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers):: Mr. Speaker, the expenditures through the Department of Regional Economic Expansion for forest products industries in fiscal 1979-1980 will not require one dollar more than the amount already allocated to that department. Therefore, there will be no additional cash flow burden on the fiscal framework. For the subsequent years, ranging from five to seven years, DREE has some projected budgets which will contain additional funding for these particular agreements. At some stage perhaps it will displace some other scheme which might have taken place. There is a possibility of a range of approximately $15 million per year following 1979-1980 which may require new funding; but it is possible to consider containing even that within the projected DREE budgeting.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, since the minister's statement was related to the tabling of the task force report which contained 39 specific recommendations, the major one being the refurbishing of crucial research efforts and the efforts of the forest products laboratories, is the minister able to say whether any of the money he is talking about shifting from other agencies will be directed toward that type of effort? Would he not agree that really he was misleading Canadians yesterday in front of
Oral Questions
the television camera by letting them believe he was serious about supporting an industry facing a bleak future?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well his last comment is absolute nonsense. As to the need for research within the forest resources management aspect of the program announced yesterday, yes, very definitely there will be research for regeneration and for examining faster growing species. Those will be negotiated with the provinces, but it is intended very definitely to contain a serious effort in that direction.


TRANSPORT
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In the absence of ministers from the prairie provinces, I have to direct a question to him on a matter which affects deeply western farmers. It has to do with a report of discussions on the prairies in the last few days that consideration is being given to the removal or reduction of Crowsnest pass rates which, according to the Snavely commission, would mean a loss to western farmers of $160 million to $300 million a year. Being fully conversant with this problem, will the minister promise that as long as he is minister this will not be agreed to by him?


Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely promise the House and the right hon. member that as long as I am minister I will continue to serve western Canada to the best of my ability.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Specifically regarding the Crowsnest pass rates, I am fully aware of the extensive discussions which are going on in the prairie provinces today respecting the controversy as to whether the rates are beneficial or harmful. I noted last week, I think it was, that the farmers' union-Unifarm, the farm organization in the province of Alberta-has advocated some changes. I myself, of course, will be taking my own census of the mood of the prairies with regard to this very important subject matter this weekend and in the coming months.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister deserves no congratulations for having joined in the thinking of a government that is very evasive on this subject. That surprises me greatly. What I ask him again is this: Does his evasiveness indicate that he is now in a state of uncertainty because of the attitude of some of his fellow ministers and that the Crowsnest pass rates, so far as Saskatchewan is concerned, to which I referred a moment ago

February 2, 1979
Oral Questions
with respect to the loss will not be interfered with? That is the simple question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, the answer is that rarely am I uncertain, and I am not uncertain on this question at all. I think that this government will act in accordance with the wishes of the people in western Canada. The people in western Canada today-Unifarm, the western stock breeders and other farm organizations in the province of Alberta-are suggesting that maybe now is the time to make some changes. I am not saying that I am in complete agreement with them, nor am I saying that Saskatchewan is in complete agreement with Alberta. I am saying that there is a general discussion going on in the prairies and I am fully aware of it. I believe, too, that the premiers of the prairie provinces are prepared to discuss this subject, maybe even next week, I am not certain; but I know this general discussion is going on, and I will continue to monitor it to the best of my ability.


An hon. Member:: You make Paul Martin look straightforward.


John George Diefenbaker: A final supplementary question. This example of evasiveness convinces me that the minister is going to join with the rest of the government and do away with the cornerstone of western farming operations.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, on that point, I cannot help but note that at the premier's meeting on transportation which was held in Winnipeg, the co-chairman of the meeting, Premier Lyon, suggested that the Crow rates would probably be the first thing on the agenda at the western premiers' conference which will be held in March.


John George Diefenbaker: I am asking what you are going to do.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I just point out that a general discussion is taking place in western Canada and this government is aware of it.


John George Diefenbaker: And there is general evasiveness.


FINANCE
Mr. Ross Milne (Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, from time to time the Minister of Finance has commented in this House that the government has no plans to introduce foreign exchange controls. However, in the past couple of days the media have commented nationally that perhaps in the near future Canadians may be facing that prospect. Would the minister like to clarify this contradiction?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have said, and I would like to repeat, that I have absolutely no plan for imposing exchange controls in Canada. I have said that for a year and a half and I repeat, I have no such plan for today, for next week, for next month or for next year.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. It concerns the civil aviation inspectors and the negotiations that are going on. As the-minister no doubt knows, in debate last night it was made quite clear that on any basis of comparability these particular people are being paid many thousands of dollars less than other aviation people in the industry. In view of the fact that the Air Canada average is $44,000 per year, Canadian Pacific Air $42,000 per year, and that in three other airlines the average is $37,000, while the average of these civil aviation inspectors I refer to is $25,000 per year, is the Treasury Board going to make an offer to them immediately on the basis of comparability, which is the principle the Minister of Labour keeps talking about?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, we are currently in negotiation with these groups. I do not think one conducts negotiations across the floor in the House of Commons, and I think the hon. member should be aware of that. A mandate has been given and the negotiators are endeavouring to reach a settlement. I am optimistic that they will be successful.


John Allen Fraser: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the government had dealt with these people with justice I would not have to raise the matter in the question period. In view of the fact that the only offer from Treasury Board is $1,400 per year, how can the minister stand in this House and say this is not the place to raise the issue? This is a matter of straight injustice and is contrary to the policy of the government. I want the minister to give an assurance to this House and the Canadian people that the question of comparability will be applied in these negotiations.


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make the point very clearly that there was a dispute on behalf of this group which changed its union representation.


John Allen Fraser: That has nothing to do with it.


J. Judd Buchanan: They took the dispute through. They disputed the AIB ruling, they went to the administrator, they went to the Federal Court.


John Allen Fraser: You passed a law that negated their victory.
February 2, 1979


J. Judd Buchanan: During that process, and in spite of that fact, we granted to them at regular intervals the maximum to which they were entitled under the AIB regulations at the time. We attempted to deal honestly and fairly with this situation. As I said, we are currently in negotiation with these groups and are optimistic that we will reach a satisfactory settlement.


REQUEST FOR CONCILIATION BOARD
Mr. Ron. Huntington (Capilano):: A supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board on the same matter, Mr. Speaker. I would not want to say that he has misled the House, but it is a fact that these negotiations that started on January 30 have broken off. The other day the minister assured me in the House, or nodded in the House, that a meaningful negotiation would be entered into. They opened with 3 per cent, Mr. Speaker, and ended up with 5.7 per cent. This is an insult to this group which has fallen completely behind all other areas in that industry. The thing that is so important here is that the civil aviation standards-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member have a question?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: In view of the fact that this is a most serious situation for this country and for the safety of aviation, will the President of the Treasury Board now assure us that they will ask for a conciliation board so that this matter can be resolved once and for all in a fair and proper manner, instead of the games that have been played by his representatives in these negotiations over three years?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I do not have anything to add to the comments I made to the previous member.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The President of the Treasury Board did not answer a very simple question. Will Treasury Board request a conciliation board so that this matter can be properly dealt with?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is obviously a repetition of the previous question.


REFERENDA
Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. In view of the minister's statement earlier this week that the federal government might organize a referendum on the question of the province of Quebec remaining within confederation if Mr. Levesque does not set a date for one this year, could the minister say whether all Canadians will be able to express themselves on this subject
Oral Questions
or will it be confined to Canadians living within the borders of Quebec?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the legislation which is now before parliament was passed yesterday in the House and is now being studied by a House committee. It is quite clear on the fact that referenda organized by the federal government must deal with constitutional issues. It also stipulates that those referenda can take place in one, several or all provinces. Once this bill becomes law, the government can consider the different hypotheses, the different alternatives and once the government has chosen a particular one, it would be submitted to parliament for discussion and debate, for at least 40 hours in the House and 40 hours in the Senate. I think that when a specific question is proposed to the House, we will have the opportunity to discuss together exactly what fields the question will encompass.


CRIMINAL CODE
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. The former minister of justice introduced a bill, C-52, which redefined rape. Prior to that a former minister of justice amended the Criminal Code to the effect that a victim of a rape would not be subject to cross-examination. The courts have now ruled that these people are compellable witnesses in a trial within a trial, called a voir dire. The matter is to go before the Supreme Court of Canada.
Would the minister advise the House if he will again bring forward a bill similar to C-52, something which has been requested by the women's associations of Canada, so that this matter can be clarified and victims of this horrible crime will not be brutalized by counsel for the defence in their questions as to past conduct?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, obviously I would not want to comment specifically on a case which is going before the Supreme Court of Canada at the present time. This case will proceed in due course in its formal way.
With regard to the general provisions brought forward last year dealing with the crime of rape, my intention is to bring before the House a new series of amendments to the Criminal Code which will deal not only with the issue of rape but all sexual offences, following the recent report of the Law Reform Commission, the recommendations of which we are examining.
I have already indicated that there is at least one recommendation which I will not accept, that being the removal of incest from the Criminal Code, but the other recommendations are
2832

February 2, 1979
Oral Questions
being examined very thoroughly. I hope very soon to be in a position to table before the House further amendments in this respect. Obviously, the area of rape is one that will be covered under those amendments.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's answer, which was quite wordy, but I would like him to answer my original question directly. In the bill which he now intends to bring before the House, will this particular matter, the right of cross-examination in order to determine the admissibility of evidence and the right to cross-examine the victim in the main trial, be dealt with and the former amendment-which was introduced by this government and did more harm than good-be deleted to protect the women of this country, as the women's associations have recommended, irrespective of what the Law Reform Commission says? Because these associations do not agree with all of its recommendations.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, last year proposed amendments were brought before this House which had wide support among women's organizations. Certainly the comments made at the time by the hon. member about the proposals were not very well received by women's organizations. As a matter of fact, the hon. member got his party into a great deal of trouble at the time with women's organizations by his comments on this whole issue of rape.
We are reviewing those proposed amendments pursuant to representations made by women's organizations, and the hon. member will have ample opportunity to consider and debate those amendments when they are properly before the House.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Since two major Canadian copper producers, namely Texas Gulf and Noranda, have increased the price of copper by four cents a pound in Canada, but by only three cents a pound in the United States, will the minister investigate this price discrimination and cause the companies to justify why Canadian industry and consumers must pay more than their American counterparts for a Canadian-produced product?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, as I answered to a previous question, I would be pleased to do all 1 can under my legislative authority. These price increases are serious and important, and I will refer them to my director of combines to see if there is anything illegal under the law and if there is any action that can be taken.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that Noranda Mines experienced a profit increase of 117 per cent in 1978

over 1977, will the minister call in the president of the company and persuade him to practice the kind of restraint in price and profit increases which the Prime Minister has recently been demanding of labour, which saw its real wages decline by 2.4 per cent last year?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the details of this particular case, but I said I would look into it. I should point out to the hon. member in the House that many of the increases in profits by Canadian companies have been due to the fact that they are selling a considerable amount abroad, much more in the last couple of years than they have in previous years, owing to the difference in the value of the dollar. Because of these increased sales, of course, there has been an increase in profits. But I will check the particular case and determine if there is anything irregular.


INDUSTRY
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs as well, if I could have his attention. Last year Canada's secondary industry in the manufacturing of steel products had to go abroad to the American market to buy steel which had been manufactured in Canada and sold to the Americans at an inflated price. Will the minister look into this action and see that it does not happen again this year?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if that particular problem falls under the authority of my department. I will check the matter and if it does not I will refer it to the appropriate minister.


LOTTERIES
James Sydney Clark Fleming: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Considering the indications that private sector social agencies have had more difficulty in recent years raising money because of the establishment of legalized government lotteries and then the proliferation of those lotteries, and considering that there is a view widely held by many people, including myself, that the major participants-in fact, a disproportionate number of participants-in the lottery programs are the poor and the near poor, I wonder if the minister would support a government investigation into the social and socioeconomic effects of lotteries? If so, would he then urge his cabinet colleagues to initiate such a study?
February 2, 1979


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I do agree that such a study is important, and I will take steps to see that it is undertaken. I have already in months past spoken to the minister responsible for lotteries with respect to greater consumer representation on the board of Loto Canada. My department is also checking some of the advertising of the differrent lotteries to determine whether it is fair and honest.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and concerns the allegations that foreign baler twine is being dumped into Canada. Has the minister made any representations to the deputy minister of revenue, who has an investigation on at the present time in that regard, to ensure that Canadian farmers are not forced into paying artificially high prices for imported twine out of natural fibres, just so that Canadian manufacturers which make plastic twine will be protected?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I believe that I have answered a letter from the hon. member in this regard, but I do not know if he has received it. There is an inquiry going on within the department, but I do not think that it is finished yet. My concern, regardless whether it is plastic twine or the old type of binder twine that we use, is that we get it at a reasonable price in order to make operations more efficient.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the minister is mistaken in his answer and that he is referring to another inquiry dealing with getting the Department of National Revenue to remove the sales tax on twine purchased by farmers without having to use end-user certificates. The minister lost that round.
This is a separate inquiry numbered D37-2 by the Department of National Revenue and has to do with an investigation already going on. Will the minister make representations to the Minister of National Revenue or the deputy minister who is causing this inquiry to ensure that, if a surtax or an extra provisional duty is put on, farmers will be able to purchase twine without that extra duty through the use of end-user certificates.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hon. member knows that I do not end a fight after one round. I am not finished with that matter, but the hon. member is entitled to his opinion. I will certainly make inquiries with regard to the hon. member's representation.
Oral Questions


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Because of the obvious difficulties of carrying on any further investigations in Iran and the reputed flow out of Iran of millions of dollars of U.S., Canadian and foreign currency credits by members of the Iranian royal family and others, and because of the very serious allegations that have been in the hands of Canadian law enforcement agencies for over two years, can the Solicitor General report now on the results of investigations into these allegations, which in effect were with the full knowledge and complicity of Canadian civil servants and perhaps of the Canadian government itself, that bribes had to be paid to members of the Iranian ruling classes, members of the royal family and others by Canadian suppliers to the Iranian armed forces?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows that when these questions were raised previously I took the position that I would not comment on the investigation. I indicated to the hon. member that the investigation was ongoing. He has made certain observations relating to the current status in Iran and indeed, Mr. Speaker, the previous replies I have provided to the hon. gentleman and to this House apply even more so in view of these particular circumstances.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, because of the obvious interpretation that some members of the House are taking, myself included, that the minister is using that type of answer too often to evade reporting to this House on these very serious matters, and also not only because it involves an investigation in Iran but matters relating to tax records of Canadian corporations, income of Canadian civil servants and ex-Canadian civil servants, and other such matters which should have been reported long before this to the House, I appeal to the minister again to drop this evasive manner of his and to come clean on what is happening to these investigations. Are they still ongoing? Are they in Canada? Are they elsewhere? Just what is happening?


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, surely the hon. gentleman knows the reason why the replies I have furnished to him tend to be non-committal; the investigations are ongoing. The hon. gentleman knows full well any comment that may be made by me or by him in any context which would tend to interfere with those investigations would be subject to serious review. The police force in Canada is one of the best police forces to be found in any democracy. It is interested, as we are, in unearthing crime, in finding wrongdoing where there is wrongdoing and in prosecuting that wrongdoing.
There is no attempt at all to do anything but permit the police force to carry through its responsibilities. That is exactly what we are doing. I would simply ask the hon. gentleman to recognize that that is what the police force is doing and to
80047-38i/2

February 2, 1979
Oral Questions
offer his co-operation by not making that sort of sensational allegation.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: 1Wr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Justice and perhaps two short supplementaries if possible.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul Wyatt Dick: The Minister of Justice made a statement during the recess that the government intended with Liberal party support to decriminalize the use of marijuana. In the context in which he made this remark during the Christmas recess, did he expand on any previous statements made by the Prime Minister last year or those made by himself in 1973?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, our position is still to oppose the legalization of marijuana. As far as possession is concerned, we believe that the criminal character involved in this act of possession has led to tens of thousands of convictions, resulting in many Canadians, young Canadians in particular, having criminal records for offences which in many instances have been mistakes that should be attributed to their youth. We find that that is a matter that should be corrected.
While keeping possession as an offence, we do not think that a criminal record should be carried by young people and Canadians in general. I believe over 57,000 convictions were registered last year. In the last few years about 250,000 Canadians have had criminal records for the offence of possession of marijuana. We believe it is time to review this situation but obviously it is a matter that I would like to discuss further with my colleagues. If we could introduce a bill in parliament during the course of this session we will have an opportunity to re-examine this situation in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, it is an important topic and I am glad to see the minister has more fully explained some of the government's thinking. However, I think this could have been clarified some six years ago when the government first started talking about it. Is the reason that he announced during the recess that the government would not be able to bring forth legislation to deal with this matter because the chairman of the Liberal election campaign committee, Senator Keith Davey, opposes-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State (Multiculturalism). Does the minister agree with the recommendations stated in the Pepin-Robarts task force report on unity regarding multiculturalism which seem to suggest that these interests can best be looked after by the provinces, when as they well know it is the federal level of government which has initiated and championed multicultural interests?


Hon. Norman A. Cafik (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, the Pepin-Robarts report does one thing which I think is very positive in this regard, and that is to recognize the multicultural character of Canada. The report further suggests that a very heavy responsibility in this area should be assumed by the provinces. I fully support the view that provinces ought to be doing more. If we are to have equality in Canada between peoples, then our educational system ought to be involved. But specifically, if the impression is, or the statement means, that the federal government should not be involved in the role of multiculturalism, I reject that concept because the lead role that we have taken will continue to be very important to the well-being of all Canadians in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FISHERIES
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. In view of the minister's stated aversion to the construction of even one freezer-trawler by Canadians for the catching of presently underutilized species, while licensing in 1978 some 300 foreign factory ships and 190 foreign freezer-trawlers within our 200-mile limit, an action that is now evidently decreasing the supply of fish for our inshore fishermen, is it the minister's intention to increase or decrease the number of foreign factory ships and freezer-trawlers licensed within our 200-mile zone in the year 1979?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, there is no way, in the time allocated to answer a question at this time, that I could correct some of the misstatements made by the hon. member; there are just too many. I recommend for the hon. member's reading and for that of any member who is interested in this matter a speech I made to the board of trade in Halifax in which I addressed this issue. Myths are being spread, some by hon. members on the other side, and particularly by the hon. member for South Shore, on the whole issue of freezer-trawlers. For example, he takes the total number of foreign vessels licensed but does not
February 2, 1979

say that some of them are licensed to catch fish for ten days or 15 days and sometimes even less. Also he does not point out that Canada's share of the fish inside and outside the 200-mile zone is increasing substantially every year. What he forgot to mention was that the share of the catch for the inshore fishery, which we and members of the New Democratic Party want to protect and which he does not, is increasing dramatically.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: In March, 1977 the United States passed a law refusing foreigners the right to fish within their 200-mile limit until United States fishermen had reached the limit of their catching capacity. Will the minister indicate whether he has any policy which would assist Canadians in catching some of the presently underutilized species which he is giving away to foreigners while using the excuse that they are surplus to our needs?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, the success of our fisheries policy is such that we do not have to ape what other countries are doing. The hon. member seems to forget that the very people who are advocating freezer-trawler licences, which are always conditional on getting part of the fish that small fishermen now catch, were very happy to get fish caught by foreign trawlers and to just act as brokers. The squid went right through the system without creating employment in Canada. Our policy has been to encourage small enterprises to do exactly what we did off Cape Breton last summer, which was to have a Canadian fishermen's co-operative using modest sized vessels to catch and sell fish, squid in particular. They then get some benefit, not only the brokers.


CRIMINAL CODE
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. Recently I, like the right hon. member for Prince Albert and thousands of Canadians, acting under the gun amnesty order of the Solicitor General presented for registration an unregistered gun to a designated official of the Ottawa municipal police. While knowing that police forces had been informed it was in their interest to confiscate all the guns they could pick up, I anticipated that the minister stood behind his amnesty order. To date I have not been notified that the permit has been issued or whether it will be. I would like to know if in not supplying a permit as promised in the amnesty the minister is condoning the seizure of any guns turned in under the umbrella of his amnesty order. Will the Solicitor General indicate to the House how many guns presented for registration his friends in the various police forces seized under the surreptitious amnesty order?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: First, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member did not identify the nature of the gun that was advanced. The amnesty program I announced was to run from
Oral Questions
November 1 to November 30. During that period 47,400 guns were presented either for registration or were surrendered.
The amendments to the Criminal Code affecting gun control which went into effect on January 1, 1978 provided for an extension of the prohibited gun class. In terms of the prohibited guns, those guns that fit within that category could not be owned or possessed by anyone. If they are presented at any time, they are of course seized because it is illegal to own those guns. In terms of the restricted class, that is the semi-automatic or handguns which fit within that class, those guns upon presentation during that amnesty period would be registered.
After the amnesty period, which lasted until November 30-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of confusion in the hon. member's mind and I would like to clarify it. After November 30, because it had become such a popular program,
I made arrangements with the attorneys general of the various provinces to have them accept prohibited guns or the surrender of other guns that would be fit for registration so that they could be registered notwithstanding the fact that the amnesty period had gone by. As I understand it, that went on in order to accommodate those people in the build-up prior to the end of the amnesty period.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may ask one supplementary.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I asked for clarification, not a reiteration of the program. Like others, I turned in guns that could be registered. We were given to understand they would be registered without penalty under the amnesty and returned. Most gun clubs in the country now charge that the minister is seizing those guns. I was promised that I would be notified whether a permit would be granted for my P-38. It has not and I have not heard from them. I must therefore assume that what the gun clubs are saying is true, that the minister is in fact seizing these guns under the amnesty program. Is that what the minister intended or not? If not, why have I not been notified?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should have presented that question and not read the piece of paper to which he was addressing himself. There is absolutely no intention of seizing any guns that can be registered in accordance with the law of this country. The allegations to which the hon. member refers are completely unfounded. If the hon. member has not received notification that a certificate is to be issued relating to his registration, I will see that that is done as long as the guns he has presented fit within the restricted category under the Criminal Code.
I would indicate to the hon. member or any other hon. member who has had some difficulty or may be aware of some delay in the issuance of a registration certificate to make me aware of that fact so that we can accelerate the process.

February 2, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Broadbent
Because of the large number of guns that were presented for registration, there has been a delay in issuing the certificates.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have difficulty in getting answers from the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) because he usually comes into the chamber about 15 minutes before the end of the question period. There is a demise of the urban affairs ministry. It is slowly being closed down. We understand that studies are being disposed of. They were done at a cost of millions of dollars to the taxpayers of this country. Is the minister documenting these studies and will the people of Canada have an opportunity to look at something before the department is closed and this minister is gone? It is rather difficult to ask a question ten minutes prior to the end of the question period.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know how many of the hon. member's colleagues were recognized in the question period today, but there was quite a number, thanks to co-operation on all sides of the House. I surely cannot begin to control the content of the questions.


PRIVILEGE
Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I would like to try to deal with the question of privilege raised yesterday by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). The hon. member indicated that he was concerned that I may have deliberately or inadvertently misled the House in my comments, presumably those at page 2784 of Hansard. I wish to inform the hon. member that I did not deliberately mislead the House nor did I do it inadvertently. I presume the hon. member's comment specifically pertains to my remarks at page 2784 of Hansard which, for clarity, I will repeat. In answer to the hon. member's question, I said:
This comes about as a result of a consultative process which has been ongoing for many, many months-almost a year-in which representatives of industry, labour and management have made very definite, joint and agreed upon recommendations to the government.
The hon. member interjected:
Labour does not agree with that.
I presume that is the basis of his concern. I did not intend that to indicate a unanimous joining by labour and management in every recommendation of the task force. The hon.

member is quite correct in pointing out that Mr. Lorrain, a very senior executive officer of the Canadian pulp and paper workers, indicated at the last meeting before the task force report was finally approved that he had reservations about portions of the recommendations. That did not exclude many of the recommendations with which, my information is, that he definitely did agree. Further, there were two other senior representatives of labour working very constructively with the management and the industry on that task force and they did not at that time join him in expressing any reservations whatsoever. So I think I am entitled to assume there was a high degree of consensus between management and labour in the constructive process leading to the recommendations of the forest products industry task force.
The hon. member went on to indicate that Mr. Lorrain disagrees flatly with the report. Without any attributed criticism, I am not sure whether he was referring to the task force report or to the policy responses that I made public yesterday. The hon. member is indicating it is the latter. I hope that is not the case. I cannot confirm or deny what Mr. Lorrain may or may not have said in a press conference, but I hope very much to meet him very soon, possibly this afternoon, and I will explore with him any reservations he may have. At present the only information I have is through the press, from which I gather he expressed a valid concern, although I do not think it is a valid criticism of the program, that is to say, his worry about the possibility of failure to maintain the jobs and incomes of workers during any period of modernization.
I do not think that is a valid criticism because I and my department will be extremely exercised about any such possible diminution of employment in the forest industry during the modernization process as well. I would make this point, though, as far as I am concerned, the best way to maintain jobs is to have an industry which is competitive and able to carry on generating and maintaining employment. We shall be happy and fully intend to talk to anybody in that area and discuss any specific matters if, in the end, there should be a temporary diminution of employment. I respect the hon. member, as he knows, and I hope I have now cleared up this matter. I certainly did not deliberately mislead and I hope 1 did not inadvertently mislead anybody, and therefore I do not think there is a valid question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the House will recognize that there is a legitimate difference of opinion between two hon. members but that it does not constitute a question of privilege.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Alexander:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the acting government House leader with respect to government business, having heard his thinking in terms of multiculturalism. He had an opportunity to amend the immi-
February 2, 1979

gration bill in order to insert one word, that is, "multicultural". At that time the government members did not accept it. In order to give some credibility to that great speech he has just delivered, is it his intention to introduce a bill to amend the immigration legislation to insert the word "multicultural" in the preamble to that bill, because unless that is done his statement is just puff, fluff, and flannel?


Mr. Speaker:: That is an excellent try to extend the question period but it is not going to work.


POINT OF ORDER
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, as the chairman of the justice committee in my party I have always sought to maintain good liaison with ministers of justice because it is so necessary to keep all matters of this serious nature out of partisan politics. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde) said to me today that I had made certain statements with reference to rape and that I was in some difficulty. I would like him to produce any evidence that I have made any statements for which I have been criticized by any of the women's organizations in this country. I think the only reason he answered like that-and I want to have just a moment in which to explain-is that having become the new Minister of Justice he knows I have the confidence of the justice committee. I have been told that I have always acted in a non-partisan manner. I hope the new Minister of Justice will not act in his new portfolio as he did in his previous one and put politics into the field of justice.
Perhaps I might just make this one point-and surely I should have the privilege to do so in order to avoid misunderstanding and misrepresentation. The law of rape was changed in order to protect the victim. I have always said the reason we should have reform in this field is to protect the victim of the crime against serious cross-examination. In making the change, the government-and I was not saying this in a partisan way-left it to the judge to decide whether the victim would be subject to cross-examination. Under the law as it now stands, judges have ruled in the trial within the trial to see whether those questions can be asked at the main trial. They hold what is called a trial within a trial. Now the defence is taking the position-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Let me just finish this, Mr. Speaker, please! I have just one more sentence.


Mr. Speaker:: I would just like the hon. member to relate all this to a point of order, if he has one.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is because I was misrepresented. What I was saying is this: now the law is such that it is working against the victim. My position in this party, as chairman of
Privilege-Miss Begin
the justice caucus, is that we want the law reformed to protect the victims of this crime. That is the reason I raise the question. The Minister of Justice tried to twist the handle the other way because of his own errors and his own mistakes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of State for Multiculturalism is rising on a question of privilege?


Norman Augustine Cafik: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Very briefly, my integrity has, I think, been attacked in this House under an erroneous point of order. I would simply say this in response, and I believe I have a right to do so very briefly: in terms of multiculturalism, I will go one better and enshrine it in the Constitution of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[Translation)


MR. LACHANCE-CLARIFICATION OF CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the allegations of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), I should like to say two things: first of all, on behalf of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde) I promise he will answer the matter when he comes back to the House, perhaps tomorrow, when he has had a chance to read the blues; second, the Minister of Justice did not underestimate the problem the hon. member brought up in his question; on the contrary, he himself has stated that the government intends to introduce a bill to follow up the report of the Law Reform Commission, and the matter of evidence is now under study. In addition, when he pointed out to the hon. member that the people who were asking for those amendments had attacked the policy of the hon. member, it certainly was after the remarks of the hon. member to the effect that the Minister of Justice did not listen to the groups concerned. So, Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say that the minister can pursue the matter further on that question of privilege if he sees fit to do so.


MISS BEGIN-MISUNDERSTANDING OF SPEECH ON BILL C-2
Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I should like to suggest to the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) that he correct the statements he made last night during the debate. I checked my speech on Bill C-2 as reported on page 2808 on the French version of Hansard. I spoke French at the beginning of my remarks and mentioned that

February 2, 1979
Privilege-Miss Begin
one of the points under discussion was the fact that the opposition had accused us of not giving enough money to the Medical Research Council.
Twice in his speech the hon. member has called me dishonest. He was speaking English. The second time he said "blatantly dishonest". I then asked him to retract his words. He refused to do so. I personally checked the blues last night and they reflected what I had said, which is the contrary of what the hon. member accused me of having said. Consequently, I want him to retract his words accusing me of being dishonest which are recorded in Hansard.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a couple of things to say on this matter. On November 27 the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) accused me of being dishonest. I rose on a point of order at that time, and the Acting Speaker ruled that the matter did not constitute a point of order but simply a point of debate. It was on that precedent that I assumed that the word "dishonest" was parliamentary and acceptable language.
The second point I would like to make is that, according to the rules, this type of matter cannot be raised as a question of privilege but as a point of order. I reviewed the rules last night. I also went to see the blues myself, and I must point out that the minister or a representative from her department did make two changes in the French blues. I examined them personally this morning, and the changes were made.


Monique Bégin: I did not read the blues.


Paul Yewchuk: I said the minister or her representative. I also want to point out that I have been informed that, at best, simultaneous interpretation is only 70 per cent accurate. Perhaps the simultaneous translation was somewhat different from what the minister intended, because what I heard the translator say in committee was slightly different from what is recorded in English Hansard.
In any case, even though there is a precedent for using this language, if it is found to be unparliamentary I have no objection to changing the word "dishonest" to "blatantly confused", if that makes the minister any happier.


Mr. Speaker:: The withdrawal of unparliamentary language, as all hon. members know, has been classic in its deviousness over the years. There has been a number of combinations and varieties of withdrawals and retreats from unparliamentary language, and I see no reason why I should not extend that same privilege to the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) in this situation. He has indicated that if the words "blatantly dishonest", which he evidently directed toward the minister, are in fact unparliamentary, he wishes them to be withdrawn and endeavours to replace them with other words. That cannot be done, but his withdrawal of words is accepted. They are in fact unparliamentary. He has withdrawn them, and he is attempting to replace them with other words which

are not unparliamentary. He is attempting to do precisely the same thing other hon. members have done when compelled to withdraw this kind of language, so I cannot prevent the hon. member from doing so. I am grateful to know that the words declared to be unparliamentary have been withdrawn by the hon. member.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a further point of order. I would like a clarification on the previous ruling to which I made reference, by the Acting Speaker, which is found at page 1526 of Hansard for November 27, at which time I requested that the hon. member for Winnipeg North withdraw the same language. It was ruled at that time that the matter was simply a matter of debate.


Mr. Speaker:: In the first place, the hon. member is not going to get that kind of ruling out of me now. He was kind enough to withdraw the language that he used, and I am grateful that he did. With respect to individual precedents, if the hon. member examines the precedents with respect to unparliamentary language, he will find that the difficulty the Chair has is that the precedents are replete with expressions of unparliamentary language. It has been found in some circumstances by some speakers in certain contexts that certain language has been unparliamentary, and in other cases precisely the same language has been found by other speakers in other contexts and other circumstances to be parliamentary. Therefore, there is not much assistance in the precedents in this regard, except for one or two very clear expressions. For example, wherever it has been used, the word "liar" has never been deemed to be an acceptable expression to be used by anybody. However, there is a whole series of expressions which in one context have been found to be unparliamentary and in others have not been so found.
There are difficulties in applying these precedents to individual situations. I think the best the Chair can do, where there is any doubt, is generally to try to resolve that doubt in favour of maintaining decorum in the House because usually it is not too difficult for hon. members involved to withdraw certain remarks in the name of parliamentary decorum. As I said, I am delighted that that is the course the hon. member for Athabasca followed this morning.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[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: 408, 468, 542, 592, 671, 781, 852 and 853.
February 2, 1979


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	Since 1975, by year, did the government, in general and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, in particular, expend any monies on
(a)	studies (b) advertising (c) public hearings, in regard to (i) restoration (ii) redevelopment of the Banff Cave and Basin facilities and, if so, in what amount?
2.	Were proposals made by persons responsible for restoration and/or redevelopment of such facilities and, if so (a) what were they (b) what is the estimated cost of their implementation?
3.	Were (a) petitions (b) group and/or individual briefs (c) general representations received (i) supporting (ii) opposing the proposals of the government and/or the departments in respect of restoration and/or redevelopment of the facilities and, if so, how many and what consideration was given to them?
4.	In each case, what are the names of the groups (a) supporting (b) opposing the proposals as outlined by the authorities for restoration and/or redevelopment of the facilities?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. (a), (b) and (c) No studies, advertising or public hearings in regard to restoration or redevelopment of the Banff Cave and Basin have been conducted by the government since 1975.
2.	Yes (a) a preliminary artist's conception was prepared;
(b)	no cost estimate was prepared.
3.	(a) Yes, (b) No, (c) Yes.
The one petition received made a new proposal. The nine letters received supported the preliminary artist's concept regarding restoration of the structure and made additional proposals. Both the letters and the petition are under consideration at the present time.
4.	The group presenting the petition was an ad hoc committee composed primarily of Banff citizens.


Mr. Mazankowski: To date, what is the total cost of the Sullivan Commission on Newfoundland Transportation?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: As of November 7, 1978, the total expenditures for the Sullivan Commission on Newfoundland Transportation were $715,275.05.


Mr. McKinnon: Did the Department of Supply and Services award a contract for $25,000 to W.B. Walker, 1869 Beattie Avenue, Ottawa for acquisition, planning and control services for the Canadian patrol frigate programme and, if so, in what way does the contract differ from contracts awarded to Atlantic Information Systems Ltd., 3032 Cowan Crescent, Ottawa for (a) $30,000 in February 1976 to design a standard network format for planning and control of a design and acquisition process for the Armed Forces Maritime (b) $33,499 in February 1977 for derivation of detailed networks for development and control of the 205 class ship replacement programme?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Supply and Services):: contract was awarded by the Department of Supply and Services in the amount of $25,000 on July 6, 1978 to Mr. W.
Order Paper Questions
B. Walker for professional services to the Canadian Patrol Frigate Program with respect to acquisition management analysis, contractor proposal evaluation, contractor selection, contract documentation and contractor performance measurement systems.
The contracts in 1976 and 1977 to Atlantic Information Systems Ltd. related to network design, network installation and network training in Maritime System Design and Acquisition, and detailed networking for the 205 class ship replacement program, respectively.
The requirements of the Walker and Atlantic contracts bear no relationship to each other inasmuch as the Walker contract does not deal with networking but rather with acquisition planning in a totally new procurement process, whereas the Atlantic contracts deal with the specific technique of networking.


Mr. Holmes: 1.	What was the total amount made available to the Northern Flood Committee of Manitoba and what was the amount in loans and have these been repaid and, if not, on what date will they be repaid?
2.	Is the Committee still operational and, if so, what funds has it received directly or indirectly from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1. Accountable contributions:
1975-76	$	2,000
1976-77		81,228
1977-78		381,153
1978-79		300
Total:	$	464,681
Loans		
1974-75	$	168,200
1975-76		300,000
1976-77		964,282
1977-78		250,000
Total:	$1,682,482	
None of the $1,682,482 in loans has been repaid by the northern flood committee. As the negotiated settlement did not provide sufficient cash compensation to the claimants to enable them to repay the loans, the full amount will be forgiven by the government. Treasury Board approval to delete the loan was given on October 18, 1978.
2. The committee is still operational. In addition to the funds provided in part I of the answer, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development contributed $112,500 in 1978-79 to the five individual Indian bands to help them ensure they receive what they are entitled to under the agreement. It is the department's understanding that some, or all of this, has been turned over to the northern flood committee.

February 2, 1979
Order Paper Questions CRTC-HOUSE OF COMMONS PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Parker: 1.	Is it the policy of the CRTC that House of Commons proceedings should not be carried on the community channel of cable television companies and is there available time for carrying at least part of the proceedings on virtually all such community channels and, if so, what is the justification for such a policy?
2.	What is the justification of such a policy, which restricts access to House proceedings to Canadians who own a converter, when funds to generate the coverage were provided from general tax revenues?
3.	Given the audiences attracted subsequent to the establishment of this policy, is it the intention of the Commission to change their policy, allowing the audience potential to increase substantially and, if not, for what reason?
4.	Did the CRTC receive any requests from (a) cable television companies (b) private citizens, to provide House of Commons coverage in whole or in part on the community channel, so that a converter would not be required and, if so, how many were received (i) from each province (ii) from the cities of Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Halifax, St. John's (iii) on a basis of time or delayed coverage?
5.	Did the CRTC receive any indications of interest from any public or private, radio or television broadcaster, in carrying the question period on a regular basis, either delayed or live and (a) if so, what was the Commission's response (b) if not, has the Commission attempted to stimulate any and, if not, for what reason?
6.	In requiring purchase of a converter before coverage of the House of Commons may be viewed, is the CRTC moving towards a license fee for television sets?
7.	For each major Canadian metropolitan market, what are the viewing audience figures for House of Commons proceedings in terms of (a) absolute numbers (b) percentage of total viewing audience when proceedings are (i) available live (ii) delayed 3 to 6 hours (iii) delayed 6 to 12 hours (iv) delayed over 12 hours (v) available live and delayed (c) percentage of total viewing audience when proceedings are available only on sets equipped with a converter and are (i) available live (ii) delayed 3 to 6 hours (iii) delayed 6 to 12 hours (iv) delayed over 12 hours (v) available live and delayed (d) percentage of total viewing audience when proceedings are available on community channel and are (i) available live (ii) delayed 3 to 6 hours (iii) delayed 6 to 12 hours (iv) delayed over 12 hours (v) available live and delayed?
8.	What are the differences in viewing patterns in all the categories listed in Part 7 when (a) only the question'period is available (b) full proceedings on a daily basis are available (c) summary packages or excerpts are available, either daily or weekly?


Mr. C. Douglas (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: In so far as the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission is concerned, the answer to the above question is as follows:
1. It is the present policy of the CRTC to encourage the carriage of the House of Commons proceedings on cable channels other than the community channel. The reason for this is that the commission has for many years adopted a principle of supporting and encouraging community programming, that is to say programming produced in, and for the local community, through setting aside a dedicated cable channel for this purpose.
Over the years there have been many pressures to use this channel for purposes other than community programming, including such matters as educational programming, programming of a general interest nature but not local in origination, and more recently for the carriage of the parliamentary debates.
Although there is unused time on the community channel in many systems, giving over this time to other programming services would have the effect of gradually eroding the special

purposes for which the community channel was established, namely to be of direct help to local communities.
It is possible to carry portions of the parliamentary debates which relate to local issues and involve members of parliament from the particular local area in the context of locally produced programs. This would be entirely within the present regulations governing the use of the community channel.
It should be emphasized that the commission is not preventing cable licensees from carrying not only the question period but the full proceedings of the House of Commons on the basic cable service. This would of course mean displacing a United States' channel in most cases, a decision which cable licensees are reluctant to make.
Furthermore, the governor in council could issue directions to the commission requiring the establishment of a special dedicated channel on all cable systems on the basic service for the carriage of the House of Commons proceedings in accordance with section 15 of the Broadcasting Act of 1968.
2.	As indicated in the response to question (1), the commission does not have a policy of restricting the House proceedings to Canadians who own a converter. It is simply that cable systems are reluctant to place the proceedings on the basic service and displace United States' signals.
3.	The commission considers that the present policy does not by itself restrict the proceedings in any way and sees no reason at this time to change its policy.
4.	Yes
a. (i) Nova Scotia	2
Quebec	12
Ontario	1
Manitoba	1
Saskatchewan	2
British Columbia	1
Yukon	1
(ii) Cities of:	
Vancouver	Nil
Calgary	Nil
Edmonton	Nil
Winnipeg	1
Toronto	Nil
Ottawa	Nil
Montreal	3
Halifax	1
St. John's	Nil
(iii) requests made for "delayed coverage" b. Yes
(i) Nova Scotia	1 individual
British Columbia
February 2, 1979

letter from Allan McKinnon, MP Victoria and summary of questionnaire mailed to constituents-results show 72.7 per cent of replies received by Mr. McKinnon requested House of Commons on community channel
letter from Hugh Anderson, MP Comox-Alberni commenting on the carriage of the House of Commons on community channel
individual 1
5.	The commission understands that the Ontario educational communications authority broadcasts the question period from 10.30 p.m. to 11.30 p.m. daily on its over-the-air transmitter throughout Ontario. In addition, the CBC, Radio-Canada, Reseau TV A, and CTV broadcast a synopsis of the proceedings once a week.
There is no practical reason why the proceedings could not be carried by off-air broadcasters in any local area. As a principle the commission is in full agreement with the carriage of parliamentary debates by off-air broadcasters. The programming carried by each broadcaster is the responsibility of that broadcaster subject only to applicable regulations and the commission does not act to force broadcasters to carry any particular programming service. Broadcasters are responsive to the interest of their community and would no doubt wish to consider carrying parts of the Commons proceedings if they receive a significant number of requests from their communities.
6.	The CRTC is not moving towards a license fee for television sets and in any event it would not have the power to impose such an obligation on the public since it would represent a form of taxation. The commission does not specifically require the purchase of a converter before the House of Commons coverage may be viewed anymore than it requires the public to subscribe to cable television or for that matter purchase a television receiver. This is simply like any other broadcast service where the option to receive it is entirely up to the public.
7.	The commission has no way of providing an immediate response to the question and it would require a major survey which would in our estimation take at least six months and be quite costly to undertake.
8.	This is really an extension of question 7 and poses the same problems.


Mr. Howie: What amount was paid as a subsidy to air carriers operating in the Atlantic Provinces in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1978?


Otto Emil Lang: The Canadian Transport Commission reports as follows: Subsidy paid to air carriers operating in the Atlantic Provinces in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1978 amounted to $1.7 million.
Order Paper Questions LABOUR-PROJECTS IN RICHMOND


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


Hon. Martin O'Connell (Minister of Labour):: 1. No.
2. No.


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


Pierre De Bané: 1.
No.
2. No.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, would you be good enough to call starred question No. 627.

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.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Rynard: 1.	What was the total cost of the installation of the new marine railway at the Big Chute on the Trent-Severn Waterway?
2.	(a) How many bids were received (b) who submitted them and, in each case, what was the amount?
3.	Who was awarded the contract and what was the amount of the bid submitted?
4.	What was the test period on the railway before construction began and what faults, if any, were discovered during the test period?
5.	During the 1978 season, how many days was the new railway in operation?
6.	What was the total cost, if any, of repairs made to the new railway and how many days was it closed for repairs?
7.	During the 1978 season, what was the total number of boats carried over the (a) new railway (b) old railway and, in each case, how many were damaged while in transit?
8.	Was consideration given, at any time, for the construction of a lock at the Big Chute and, if so, for what reasons was one not built?

February 2, 1979
Order Paper Questions


James Hugh Faulkner: 1. The total cost (to date) of the installation of the new Marine Railway at Big Chute on the Trent-Severn waterway is $2,707,519.41.
2. (a) There were seven bids received, as follows:
(b) 1. Armbro Materials & Construction Ltd. P.O. Box 1000 Brampton, Ontario	$2,576,620.00
2. Pitts Engineering Construction (Eastern) Ltd. 30 Commercial Road Toronto, Ontario	2,721,355.00
3. S. McNally & Sons Limited 1855 Barton Street East Hamilton, Ontario	2,982,901.75
4. E.S. Fox Limited P.O. Box 10 Welland, Ont.	3,294,757.00
5. Thomas Fuller Construction Co. (1958) Limited 2700 Queensway Drive Ottawa, Ontario	3,340,406.70
6. Rideau Valley Contractors Limited P.O. Box 700 Stratford, Ontario	3,346,946.00
7. Paul Carruthers Construction Ltd.	3,558,423.00
P.O. Box 300 Markham, Ontario
3.	The low bidder, Armbro Materials & Construction Limited, was awarded the contract at $2,576,620.
4.	Tests of the slings were made at the Port Severn Marina during design stages of the project, and improvements effected.
5.	The new marine railway was operated July 15, July 17 to 23 and September 30 to October 11-a total of 20 days. Between July 23 and September 26 the new marine railway was available for transporting any boats that could not be transported on the old railway.
6.	The new railway was closed four days for replacement of hydraulic valves and testing at a cost of $9,843.19. The contractor is also submitting a claim for time spent in investigating and determining that the hydraulic valves were failing. This claim, in the amount of $ 12,367.42, is being disputed.
7.	Total number of boats carried over (a) new railway-884 (b) old railway-5926 during 1978
There was: (a) one damage claim on new railway and (b) two damage claims on the old railway.
8.	Consideration was given to building a lock. Due to costs (estimated cost of lock $7,000,000) and in order to prevent sea lamprey migration, a new railway was favoured over a lock.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, February 1, 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.
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned yesterday evening we were debating Bill C-2, and I had already made some remarks but I had not had the honor nor the advantage of hearing the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) when she spoke because I was not in the House. Having read her comments, I am going to be briefer, because she answered several of the questions I proposed to deal with this afternoon.
Now I am convinced that before the bill was brought forward the minister asked herself whether the cancellation of the federal contribution to the Health Resources Fund might not reduce the level of health care in Canada. She said the following, and I quote:
During those discussions it seemed obvious, I believe, that the decision to anticipate the final date for the expiry of that Canadian legislation which was aimed at the construction, acquisition, renovation and purchase of equipment and buildings for the individual training of health personnel will not create serious problems concerning production and health manpower in Canada or the availability of necessary institutions for that purpose.
I am convinced that there were studies on that subject and that the minister decided to recommend to stop the federal contribution from September 9, 1978. Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I am also convinced that the minister will tell us at one point of the report stage what was the level of contributions paid by the federal government under the provisions of chapter H-4, of the legislation, and how much the national treasury could save by dropping this program. I hope she will tell us too whether the measure contemplated by Bill C-2 is a final decision or whether she may at one point come up with another bill to maintain the past levels of the federal contributions.
This puts an end to my remarks on this matter and I do hope that the passing of this bill will not limit the efficiency of our medical services or be an obstacle to the training of the staff to meet the needs of Canadians in health care.


Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I want to spend a few moments commenting on Bill C-2 on the health resources fund. I want to congratulate some of last night's speakers, and in particular my colleague, the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger), who, very ably, spoke on the matters of health problems related to the Indians, the Inuit
February 2, 1979

and the native communities. I will come back to that subject and refer to it a little later in my comments.
First, I want to make some general comments regarding the health resources fund. I am sure, as all hon. members will know, that when this particular program was instituted in 1966 it was done in conjunction with the imminent introduction of the medicare program, and indeed of the hospital diagnostic programs, and it was done so that we would be sure there would be adequate facilities, adequate personnel and adequate research, all of those parameters that are essential and necessary if we are to provide an adequate health delivery system to all Canadians.
It was of some interest that on November 30 of last year, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) made reference to this, and I should like to quote from that particular document. She said the following, at the outset:
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.
The 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.
There was a good deal of additional information, but I want to quote from page four of that same document where the minister stated the following:
In summary, the health resources fund has now achieved its primary objective of assisting the provinces and territories with the provision of the necessary training facilities to satisfy current and future requirements of health manpower in the major health decisions to meet provincial needs.
One of the difficulties with this bill and the implications and conclusions of the bill is that obviously one has to conclude that the minister is implying that all the problems relating to the delivery of health care to Canadians have been resolved. One must come to that inescapable conclusion. As I indicated a moment ago, I want to return in a moment or two to the specific issue of the desperate health problems affecting the native people in Canada, and to review in a general way some of the problems that exist as they relate to our health delivery service in Canada today because, as I indicated, there is an implication in the bill presented by the minister that when she cuts back and then terminates this program on very short notice, all our problems will have been resolved.
Back in 1973 and 1974 I can recall speaking in this chamber, and at subsequent times since then, about the difficulties we have with the health care delivery system in this country. 1 do not pretend to have adequate time to cover all these aspects, but I thought it might be useful to make reference to some of the deficiencies that exist in our system. I thought that last evening the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) would mention some of them. If the minister were truly responsible and had a genuine interest in the health of Canadians, she would have addressed herself to some of these problems rather than terminating a program which, in my view, has been successful in the past.
When I spoke in past instances I tried to look at the health care system from a different perspective. For example, I like to
Health Resources Fund Act
think of the broad category of what I refer to as the organization and management of the health care delivery system. Let me put it in simpler terms, if I can. When I am referring to that particular category, I am talking about all those aspects of our health care system including manpower needs, including the various facilities that are available, whether they are hospitals, nursing homes or paraprofessional individuals, all those areas that are relevant to the delivery of the health care system as it exists in the Canadian context. I think I should point out that this has been the primary preoccupation with respect to health matters across Canada. Certainly this is where the major emphasis and major concern are today.
There is nothing wrong with that approach; it is important and necessary. There may well have to be a different rationalization of that system, but certainly that organization in its broadest context has served us well.
There are many components to this broad category to which 1 referred. Let me indicate briefly two or three problem areas that are unresolved and to which the minister has not addressed herself. I think they are pertinent in the total context of health delivery when one talks about the cutting back of funds resolving all the problems of the delivery of health care. Of course this is a reflection of the attitude of the minister.
There are one or two very brief examples which 1 would like to give in the area of health care organization and management. Let us look for a moment at the whole problem of physician manpower requirements. If you look carefully you will find a major problem in the area, and I have not heard the minister address herself to this problem. I can assure you that in my travels across the country, particularly in the northern parts of Canada, the Northwest Territories, the Yukon and the northern part of Manitoba represented by my good colleague, the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith) I found a discrepancy in terms of the services available and the type of professional individuals who are required to provide the quality care which we would hope for and anticipate from a system that is universal in scope which exists in Canada at present.
Another small area is the various small disciplines in the medical profession itself. I am one of those who has been somewhat concerned in recent years about the disproportionate number of individuals who appear in these various disciplines. For example, we know there was a time when a large number of graduates from our medical schools went into what appeared at that time to be some of the more glamorous specialties. There was a period of time when we appeared to have a lack of general and family practitioners and specialists such as ophthalmologists and psychiatrists. We would see individuals bypassing those specialties which are most important to Canadians and becoming involved in what are considered in many instances to be more glamorous types of specialties.
I cannot avoid commenting on the whole area of physician manpower without making a comment on physicians who are emigrating to the United States, a problem about which I am somewhat concerned. Recently I was talking to my son who is

February 2, 1979
Health Resources Fund Act
presently doing some postgraduate work in London at the University of Western Ontario. He was telling me about a skit they had put on at one of the med functions. They had a sweat shirt which had on it "Med '78-United States '79". I think that is a particular omen. If one looks carefully at the figures within the last year or two, one will find a very substantial number of Canadian physicians have moved south of the border.
I should like to refer to two colleagues in my own small community whom I know very well. They were born and raised in the area, all their ties were in the area. When they were both at the peak of their careers in family practice, they moved south of the border to Tennessee. The minister should address herself to this question: why are these very important individuals, many of whom were born in and raised families in the Canadian context, moving south of the border?
The minister would find it of some value if she read a recent document produced by four students at the University of Waterloo. As I recall, these students were involved in computer technology, and perhaps mathematics and physics. They undertook the particular project of writing a thesis on the emigration of doctors from the province of Ontario to the United States. I realize the conventional wisdom is that the vast majority are doing so for economic reasons. I suggest the minister, and indeed all members of the House, should read that particular thesis. The reasons are far more extensive than straight financial ones. I have no intention of going into the details, but in many instances the reasons for this emigration have been red tape and fighting with bureaucracy. I am sorry to say also that a number of them virtually have lost faith in the country and do not see a future under the present government.
As I have discussed in the past, there must be some rationalization of the regionalization of health care. I am convinced the minister has not devoted enough time to looking at extended care facilities, home care, nursing homes, and other areas important to the delivery of quality health care across the country.
Briefly, I should like to refer to environmental health matters. 1 am sure all hon. members are very aware of the so-called conventional environmental health problems, such as the problems of impure air, the quality of drinking water, adequate food processing to ensure the health standards of individuals, and sewage and garbage disposal so that various vectors, insects and animals cannot spread disease. We are all aware of those problems, but it is only the surface of significant environmental health problems across the country. Without going into a lot of detail, I should like to refer to some other examples.
The issue of mercury poisoning was raised in the House of Commons approximately three years ago. The problem of mercury poisoning is a very important one, particularly as it relates to White Dogs, Grassy Narrows and the Cree in northern Quebec. Also there are the problems of PCBs, arsenic

poisoning, cadmium poisoning, and lead poisoning. I do not know how many members are aware of the problem with cadmium poisoning, but one governmental departmental official indicated that an Inuit working at Nanasivik Mines in the Northwest Territories had cadmium levels far above those acceptable. I am sure members are aware that cadmium is a very toxic agent. It can be damaging to the liver, the gastrointestinal tract and the nervous system. Also I am sure members are aware of the fact that lead is an environmental problem.
There are many other examples of what I consider to be environmental problems, but if one looks objectively at this area one will find that in most instances the average individual has little control over them. In many instances it is necessary to have government intervention from time to time. We have witnessed such intervention in many instances, yet I am not sure the government accepts or recognizes this very fundamental principle. If one reviews the literature dealing with environmental health problems, one will realize that we have very little knowledge in this area. Of course that implies that more research and development are required.
The minister suggested cutting back health funds, with the implication that there are no problems in the delivery of health care, and virtually ignored the problems of environmental health. Presumably the funds which are being saved could go to far greater use. For example, there is the entire problem of urbanization and the trend toward it in the last 20 years. There are a great number of socioeconomic health problems associated with urbanization, most importantly the noise factor. Indeed the urbanization phenomena have been evident in our native communities, particularly those in the far north which have experienced a sudden inter-relationship of southern Canadians with Inuit or other natives who have not had such exposure in the past. Various health problems exist in that context. In many respects they are environmental health problems, problems which virtually have been ignored by the government.
Another area I should like to deal with is that of human biology. Approximately one week ago I talked extensively about this matter in the House of Commons, particularly in terms of the value of basic medical research. I am sorry the Minister of National Health and Welfare is not in her seat at the moment. Hopefully she recognizes that there is some importance in long-term planning. I feel that she implied it in her announcements in December, but I object to the formula she applied. Without going into the details of the formula, if one analyses it carefully one will find the index used by the minister is tied to various aspects and products in the normal consumer society, items unrelated to those utilized by the science and technology field.
We all recognize inflation in cost has been far greater in that particular field than the other items included in the index which the minister felt were appropriate to use for the formula. In all sincerity I say to the government and the minister that that particular formula should be reassessed. Even though there appears to be an understanding of the importance of long-term commitments, I am sure the minister and the gov-
February 2, 1979

ernment will find a further and very definite erosion in terms of the moneys required for adequate medical research across the country.
The last item is what I have referred to as lifestyle health. I think this is emerging as one of the significant problems and one that has, unfortunately, received little attention from this government. Let me give two or three examples to try to explain what I mean by lifestyle health. This means all aspects of activities over which individuals can exert decision and control. It has been calculated that if we had the facilities, the scientific know-how today, virtually to eliminate every form of cancer known to us, we would increase the life expectancy of Canadians by two to three years.
Then there is the problem of obesity. It has been calculated that if every Canadian were to reduce their weight to what is normal, their life expectancy would be increased by six to seven years. That is what I mean by lifestyle health. That is a classic example.
I do not want to get into figures but I should like to list some of the problem areas. One figure which has impressed me over the years refers to what I call potential years of life loss. If we assume that all Canadians should live to an average age of 70 and that someone dies at age 30, what we are saying is that that individual lost 40 years of potential life. If we keep that formula in mind then it is very interesting to look at the list of the causes of loss of potential years of life.
I am not going to quote the figures, but I should like to read a list of causes. At the top of the list comes motor vehicle accidents. The potential years of life lost due to this cause are far greater than in any other category. Next comes ischemic heart disease, then other accidents, followed by respiratory disease and lung cancer, then suicide; cancer of the breast, uterus and ovary; cerebral vascular disease; gastro-intestinal cancer; leukemia and cirrhosis of the liver.
I could go on, but I want to consider another document now to point out what I consider as potential preventable causes in terms of potential years of life loss. I think this is significant in that it has been ignored by this government. The list is as follows: Motor accidents, ischemic heart disease, other accidents, respiratory disease and lung cancer, suicide, and cirrhosis of the liver. I simply say that these are potentially preventable diseases that would fit into the category of lifestyle health.
One of the major problems with this bill as I see it is that the minister has not addressed, nor have individuals in this House, the very fundamental issue of the effectiveness of the universal program that was introduced for hospital diagnostic services and for the medicare program.
Recent studies carried out in Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and Quebec and by the Ontario Economic Council subcommittee on health revealed a number of very interesting facts. 1 should like to refer to one which substantiates the point that I am trying to make. The studies show that about 65 per cent of the population of Ontario seeks national health care in any one
Health Resources Fund Act
year. Strong evidence is emerging-and this is important- that the 35 per cent not using services represents the poor and impoverished. These were the very groups that precipitated universality and government intervention. The reasons for this pattern do not entirely seem clear but may relate to the sociological variable of how these groups see sickness and the immediate geographical availability of physician manpower.
I think that is an extremely important observation. When the universal health care assistance programs were defined, whether hospital diagnostic services or medicare, we were saying that we wanted a program that would make available to all Canadians, irrespective of background, quality health care. In all sincerity, Mr. Speaker, I say that we have not accomplished that. In the cities of Canada there is still evidence of rickets and other disease. I am convinced that the group of individuals that the universal programs were designed to reach and to assist has not benefited.
That is the significant point, Mr. Speaker. Nowhere is that more obvious then in the Indian and Inuit community of this country. Last night the hon. member for Wetaskiwin referred to this problem in Alberta and gave some very revealing figures which indicated how serious it is.
I have learned that statistics are very boring, Mr. Speaker, but all the same I should like to refer to a document entitled "Mortality among the registered Indian population" by Pauline Jull of the departmental statistics division of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, which puts into perspective the seriousness of the health problem in the native community. The report concludes as follows:
In summary, we conclude that our findings show that mortality is indeed higher among the registered Indian population than among the Canadian population. If mortality differentials can be used to reflect and compare the social and economic conditions of various segments of the Canadian population, then the results just presented in this analysis would tend to indicate that the registered Indian population is substantially disadvantaged compared to the Canadian population as a whole. In light of this fact, it would appear that if the mortality of our native peoples is to be reduced, not only will better access to health facilities have to be provided but significant improvement in their standard of living will have to occur as well.
If I had the time, Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out some inconsistencies which occur between the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Department of Fisheries and the Environment. It is like musical chairs, Mr. Speaker. There is no corollation, and this was demonstrated in the debate on mercury poisoning which took place on an opposition day.
I should like to give a couple of examples of this mortality because I think it is important that hon. members understand its significance. Six categories of causes of death are listed in this report. The first is infective and parasitic diseases. The age-standardized death rate for the Indian population is 26.77 while the rate for the rest of the Canadian population is 4.98. In endocrine, nutritional and metabolic diseases-and the hon. member for Athabasca referred to the problems of diabetics in the Indian population-49.2-

February 2, 1979
Health Resources Fund Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. T. Gf*Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands): Mr. Speaker, this legislation amending the Health Resources Fund Act was debated at some length on second reading and was given a very thorough examination, as I understand it, before the standing committee. It would, therefore, seem that there is little value in extended debate on third reading, because it is perfectly clear that the government intends to use its very large majority to push this legislation through parliament.
I venture to participate in the debate, however, not only because of the impact of the legislation itself, but because of the attitude of mind which it reveals, the emphasis which it gives to certain aspects of our national life, and the disjointed scale of social values which I believe are displayed in the legislation.
We should understand that this legislation comes before the House largely as a result of the announcement which was made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on national television on August 1. Prior to this the Prime Minister had attended an economic conference; he had sailed on the Baltic with Chancellor Schmidt of West Germany, he had had a holiday in Morocco, and then returned to Canada to effect a complete reversal of the government's fiscal policies. Up until that time he, and particularly the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), had been telling the Canadian people that what was needed was an increase in the effective economic demand. Therefore the Canadian people should save less and spend more. But on August 1 the Prime Minister announced to the Canadian people that the government would embark on a program of restraint.
His first statement was to the effect that they would cut $ 1 billion from the estimates. Later this figure was raised to $2 billion which it was hoped would be passed by the Parliament of Canada. It is significant to note that the cabinet was called together ten days later to hear what the cuts in the estimates were going to be. This makes me wonder what has happened to cabinet responsibility and solidarity.
One of the long-standing traditions of the parliamentary tradition has been that the Prime Minister is primus inter pares, first among equals, that the decisions that are made are not those of the Prime Minister but of the cabinet, and the cabinet must collectively accept responsibility for those decisions after due process of consultation and discussion. Not so in the matter of restraint! The Prime Minister made the announcement as if he were a president of a country with a presidential system. He then called his cabinet ministers to-

gether who were merely to hear what decisions had been reached by the Prime Minister himself.
In my opinion, that is a very serious indictment of the regard which the government has shown for the parliamentary system. There has been growing concern in this country that we are moving step by step toward some type of presidential system. If ever this was demonstrated, it was on August 1 when the Prime Minister reversed the fiscal policy without even the Minister of Finance or his other ministers having been consulted or made aware of the decision which had been reached by the Prime Minister.
I would suggest that the legislation now before us dealing with the health resources fund has three major defects, and I will deal with them individually.
First, let me point out what this legislation does. This legislation seeks to end the health resources fund which was set up in 1966. It has two years to run and in which there is over $80 million yet to be paid out to the provinces to provide certain essential medical and diagnostic facilities. This was a commitment made in 1966 by the Government of Canada to the provinces of this country as an inducement to sit down with the federal government and work out a medicare program. The provinces came in, some reluctantly, not because they were unwilling to deal with the health problems of the nation but because some of these provinces had very limited financial resources. They knew that the moment they had a medicare program, their research, medical and hospital facilities would not be able to cope with the magnitude of the demand for medical and diagnostic services. Their concern was allayed by the fact that the federal government said that they had no need to worry about that problem.
The federal government said that they were setting up a $500 million fund which would be paid out on the basis of need and as provinces proceeded to improve their health care facilities. The provinces came in on that understanding. This was a contract. This was an obligation entered into by the federal government in return for the provincial governments agreeing to enter into a program which they knew would be extremely expensive and represent a great drain on their financial resources. Now, without any warning and without any consultation, the federal government announces in this legislation that the health resources fund is to be closed, that no more money will be paid out after any commitments made have been dealt with, and that same fund with some $80 million in it, which really belongs to the provincial governments, will be closed. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) put this matter very clearly at page 1520 of Hansard for November 27, 1978, when she said:
Why put an end to a good fund two years before its natural end?
The minister answered her question by saying:
The Government of Canada has a difficult decision to make in applying a major, traumatic restraint on its own expenditures.
It not only had a difficult decision to make but it had to decide whether or not it would break faith with the provincial governments on whose behalf this fund was established. It had
February 2, 1979
[Stage Direction]
to decide whether it was more important to cut some other items in its budget, to clean out some of the waste and extravagance demonstrated amply in the Auditor General's report year after year, or whether instead this fund would be completely eliminated. The provinces would then be left holding the baby, with all the responsibility of carrying on their share of a medicare program but without the financial support which had been promised to them.
My second criticism of this legislation is that it assumes the purposes and the objectives of the health care programs have been attained. Of course, they have not. The hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes) said earlier in this debate that the goals for universal health care have not been realized. That statement is true. It is true because we have only covered part of the program to provide the Canadian people with universal health care.
Let me just briefly give an historical summary of the health care program in this country as it applies over the past 30-odd years. As hon. members know, the first hospital insurance and diagnostic services legislation in Canada was passed in the province of Saskatchewan in 1946 and came into effect on January 1, 1947. It was financed entirely from provincial revenues, despite the fact that in 1945 we had been assured at a federal-provincial conference that the federal government was going to come into the program and share the cost on a 50-50 basis.
That hospital insurance and diagnostic services program was financed entirely by the provincial government of Saskatchewan until 1958. During the course of second reading, some members opposite said that hospital insurance in Canada as a whole was introduced by a Liberal government under Prime Minister St. Laurent. Of course that is not correct. I do not attempt to ascribe any suggestion of misleading when I say that. I think these people are just not familiar with the facts.
It is true that in 1956 the Hon. Paul Martin, then minister of health, introduced legislation to provide hospital insurance shared 50-50 between the Government of Canada and the provincial governments. However, it had in it a proviso which said that the federal government would only pay 50 per cent of the cost if a majority of the provinces representing a majority of the population of Canada agreed to enter the program. That was a fairly safe promise to make because everyone knew at that time that the government of Mr. Duplessis of Quebec and the government of Mr. Drew in Ontario had both stated categorically that they would not support a hospital plan. The only two provinces which had hospital insurance plans were Saskatchewan and British Columbia.
It should be to the everlasting credit of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), and I do not think sufficient credit has been given, that when he took office in 1957 he kept the commitment he had made to the public in the general election of that year to remove that proviso. The result was that in 1958 hospital insurance and diagnostic services became available to any province which wanted to
Health Resources Fund Act
enter into the plan and pay 50 per cent of the costs and accept the other 50 per cent from the Government of Canada. Of course both Saskatchewan and British Columbia immediately became eligible, and the other provinces one by one fell into place.
That only covers hospital insurance. When we come to medical care, the Saskatchewan government introduced medical care legislation in the fall of 1961. As a matter of fact the last piece of legislation which I introduced as premier of that province was the medicare legislation. It came into effect on July 1, 1962. That too was financed entirely by the provincial government out of its own limited resources.
In 1964 the royal commission which had been set up by the right hon. member for Prince Albert, headed by Mr. Justice Emmet Hall, made its report. In my opinion, that was the finest report on comprehensive health insurance that has ever been printed in the English language.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: It is to the
everlasting credit of the Right Hon. L. B. Pearson that his government brought down legislation in 1967 to implement a national medicare program shared by the federal and provincial governments. It came into effect on July 1, 1968.
I enumerate this because those of us interested in this field and those who pioneered this field, and I am not talking so much about politicians but doctors, hospital administrators and sociologists interested in the wider scope of the health program, all reminded the public from time to time that comprehensive medical care would come in two phases.
Phase one was the task of removing the financial barrier between those who render health services and those who receive health services. That is an important phase. As long as that barrier was there, there were people who could not get health services. No matter how deserving or how desperate their circumstances, they could not get those services. Therefore health service had a price tag. It was important to remove that barrier.
At the same time it was pointed out to the people of Canada that removing the financial barrier was only a part of the program. The much more difficult part of a health care program was to reorganize and change the entire delivery system. It had to move from a program which emphasized curative medicine over to a system which emphasized preventive medicine, recognizing that the most important thing is to keep people well rather than merely patching them up after they have become desperately ill.
The hon. member for Lambton-Kent made an excellent summary of what is entailed in that regard, such as periodic check-ups for health care, watching people's weight, X-rays, blood tests, urinalysis, checking heart conditions. He also referred to prescribing a proper diet, taking proper preventive measures and sometimes preventive surgery, saving people pain and suffering later on and also saving great amounts of money.

instead of recognizing this to be the case, ministers opposite come before the House and ask us to vote to cancel a health resources fund designed to provide facilities to improve the health of the Canadian people. At the same time, as I have pointed out, they propose to hand out $235 million to an industry which has money running out of its ears. As far as I am concerned, and as far as the New Democratic Party is concerned, we shall not agree to this legislation and what it represents.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) gives a very learned discourse on any subject before the House and is a person to whom we all listen. It was interesting that he should have referred to two phases in the health care system. What he says is, indeed, true. But he forgot to mention the third phase, one which we have not seen so far in Canada but which is presently unfolding in the United Kingdom under the National Health Service. I submit that the third phase is the phase in which one begins to see the breakdown of a health service which is completely under government control.
In the United Kingdom companies wanting to provide adequate health insurance for their employees so that they can receive adequate care so that they can return to work as quickly as possible, now have to get supplementary insurance from private insurers outside the National Health Service. I submit that that third phase will come to Canada unless governments realize that they cannot afford to interfere in the control of health care provisions to the extent they have been. This may be difficult for the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands and some of his colleagues to accept, but if they look at what is happening in Great Britain they will see that that third phase is definitely unfolding there.
Last night a bit of an altercation took place between the minister and the spokesman for my party, the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk). The hon. member quoted at some length and made references to a recent clipping from the Toronto Star which was anything but complimentary to the minister. I was surprised that the only person to come to the rescue of the minister was a member of the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
We still have not heard from anybody on the government side with regard to this bill. No government member has had the courage to come to the defence of the minister. We are debating this same bill again this afternoon. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) is not in the House, and neither is her parliamentary secretary. We are still waiting to hear from even one member on the government side regarding Bill C-2.
The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands said that this bill was fully discussed at second reading and also in
Health Resources Fund Act
committee, but it is obvious that the minister has not learned very much.


Mr. Kaplan:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member refers to government members and indicates that somehow it is reprehensible that they have not stood up to defend the minister with regard to this bill. The hon. member knows perfectly well that the reason hon. members on this side are refraining from standing up and defending the minister and the bill is that we would like to see the bill passed.


Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, I doubt if that is a question of privilege, but I appreciate the hon. member's rising at least to show some evidence that there is support for the minister.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: And he gets his name in Hansard.


Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, there are several philosophies which should be discussed with reference to this bill. We raised these philosophies in committee, and the minister certainly gave us a good hearing and made some interesting comments. I think it is very important that legislators take some cognizance of where we place our priorities in the expenditure of public funds in the health care system. I think we must consider two aspects of funding. We can spend public funds on behalf of individual citizens who need certain health services, and the question is whether the government has a right and a moral responsibility to exact taxes from those people in order to give it back to them in the form of the medical health services they receive.
Another area in the health care system which is very vital and which this government ignores is the area of research. This applies right across the whole scientific community. Individuals citizens have difficulty allocating funds personally to provide for adequate research, and if anybody in society should be responsible for such allocation it should be the federal and provincial governments. If we are coming to a time in our economic history when we are under some pressure, the priority should not be expenditures on behalf of individuals for health care but expenditures on aspects which we as individuals cannot support ourselves. I am referring, of course, to research which requires government action in order to achieve progress.
When I raised this with the minister in the committee, I was pleased with her response. As recorded in Issue No. 7 of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, at page 10, the minister said:
Usually, I would agree with Mr. Halliday's outlook. I think I would favour programs that equip people with facilities, buildings-all these things that permit people to meet and to do their thing.
The minister agreed with me that a high priority for governments should be to do those things for people which the people cannot do for themselves. I was pleased about that.
I believe it was back in 1966 that the government agreed to provide $500 million for the extension and enhancement of training facilities, for health care personnel and for certain aspects of research. Now we come to this year, and we find

February 2, 1979
Health Resources Fund Act
that the minister's priorities are different. Although theoretically she agrees with my philosophy that we have to support people in research when they have trouble financing their work, she now turns around and changes her story. I find that very disappointing indeed.
As we look further at the minister's assessment of the situation today, we find that she is cutting back on the funds which her predecessors a number of years ago agreed to provide. We find that she is not making any provision for continuing and upgrading health care facilities. As reported at page 2808 of Hansard for last night, the minister said, and I quote:
As for professional and quasi-professional health groups-
This is the part I want to emphasize.
-we now have in Canada a satisfactory level of personnel with adequate training.
1 do not need to tell the physicians who are in- the House that adequate training is not a lifetime acquisition. It is said that the half-life of a physician's knowledge is five to seven years, and I remind the minister that she should be making provisions for continuing training and the provision of facilities so that this half-life can be extended beyond five to seven years. If physicians do not receive that kind of support, they will be in more difficulty as time goes on, and we are already beginning to see some signs of that.
In this same vein, when the minister was talking to us last night, she had this to say as reported at page 2811 of Hansard:
There will be a need, to a much lesser degree, to maintain and upgrade existing schools and related facilities which in most instances are new or renovated structures.
Again I say that the minister does not seem to realize that it is necessary to keep spending money on the good facilities we already have if we are to maintain them properly.
Last night the minister criticized us for spending so much time discussing medical research. It is paradoxical that she should accuse members of the opposition in that way, and then devote most of her speech to discussing medical research. The minister raved about the contributions her government has been making to medical research over the last few years. The minister would lead the public to believe that the government has made an adequate contribution to the research community. I could quote a number of her comments which would lead people to believe that the government has done a really great job.
It is very interesting that before I heard the minister speak last night, and before she had the nerve to say that the research community is very happy with all the money which is being granted to the Medical Research Council and so forth, yesterday afternoon, I received a letter dated January 29, just Monday of this week, from the executive secretary of the science policy committee of the Canadian Federation of Biological Societies. This federation is a very learned body. Its members are very knowledgeable about research. It is too bad the minister did not consult this group before making comments about the adequacy of her support for research. This

letter was not solicited by me. As far as I know I have never been in touch with Dr. John Kucharczyk, who sent this letter to me.
I will not read the entire letter because of its length, but he points out some of the flaws in the minister's argument and the mechanisms upon which the minister based the funding proposals for the Medical Research Council and medical research in general. The plans over a five-year period are that funding for medical research will be based upon the implicit price index of the gross national expenditure. In short terms, it is condensed to IPI-GNE. In coming to a formula, that is modified by the CPI and the GNP minus 1 per cent. It is a rather complicated formula, but the interesting thing is the net effect of it upon medical research. Dr. Kucharczyk obviously is a researcher who is quite capable of bringing out the inherent fallacies in the program for medical research laid down by the minister. At page two of his letter dated January 29, 1979, Dr. Kucharczyk said the following:
Table 1 shows that from 1969-70 to 1978-79 the IPI-GNE underestimated scientific inflation-measured by the Science Expenditures Price Index or SEPI-by a total of 34.2 index points or $16.2 million.
In a budget of approximately $62 million to $63 million annually, I suggest that is a significant underestimate on behalf of medical research.
He continued as follows:
Yet it is precisely this index, the IPI-GNE, that the government intends to use on its new five-year funding formula for MRC announced by Mme Begin on December 1.
Obviously it is disappointing to the medical community, particularly the biological research community, to see the minister, who probably did not have adequate research staff, develop an incomplete and inadequate formula. In order to summarize the feelings of the Canadian Federation of Biological Societies concerning the minister's plans for the future, the closing paragraph of the doctor's letter reads as follows:
In short, our calculations do not support the minister's conclusion that the five-year plan is "A major step ... toward the achievement of greater stability in the federal government's support for biomedical research". The proposed formula neither reflects the true level of scientific inflation nor will it allow health research activities in Canada to expand at a rate commensurate with the growth rate of the economy as a whole.
That is a rather terrible indictment of the minister's plans for medical research. There are more data and several more tables containing information which was gathered by Statistics Canada and the Department of Finance. The figures were developed on behalf of the then minister of science and technology. This information is available if the Minister of National Health and Welfare wants to look at it. I hope the minister will revise her formula to support medical research in a manner satisfactory to the Canadian research community.
Another area I should like to touch on deals with the manner in which the minister brought forth the changes in Bill C-2. As the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands mentioned today, and as the hon. member for Athabasca mentioned last night, the minister made no effort to consult
February 2, 1979

the provinces prior to the institution of this drastic $84 million cut. Often we have seen this type of action occur, particularly respecting the social service programs of the government. If the government wants to be re-elected, it promises Canadians something they want very much-extra money in their pockets. This could be accomplished by promising increased benefits in health care, unemployment insurance or other programs. Usually a government is re-elected if it makes promises to the people.
In this particular instance, the government involved the provinces but gave them no choice. They were forced to agree with the plan, and the government went along with it for a given number of years. A couple of years before the plan was completed the government decided to cut off the provinces, medical research and medical schools across the country. Canadians are becoming wise to this type of action. If the government attempts to bribe people because of the upcoming election, this time I do not think it will be successful.
I should like to refer to what the minister gave as reasons for the cut. Earlier this week the minister was confused when she attempted to answer my question regarding the distribution and submission of T4A tax forms for old age pensions. I am glad the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Abbott) is in the House today, as he is very involved in this matter. He was conned by the Minister of National Health and Welfare into allowing changes to his original plans. This is very upsetting to the old age pensioners, but it is inappropriate to discuss it at this time. I wanted only to acknowledge the presence of the Minister of National Revenue. He can be assured we will discuss this matter in the very near future. Members of my party have received letters from old age pensioners all across Canada who were very upset by what the government did with the refunds they should be receiving.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare appeared before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs in order to explain the reasons for Bill C-2. I should like to quote from her four-page introductory comment dated November 30, 1978. The minister made her introductory comments before the committee on December 7, 1978. She said the following:
In summary, the health resources fund has now achieved its primary objective of assisting the provinces and territories with the provision of the necessary training facilities to satisfy current and future requirements of health manpower in the major health disciplines to meet provincial needs.
If one attempts to interpret that statement, the reason for the $84 million cut was that in the minister's opinion we had achieved the main or primary objective of the total fund, and that our needs as far as training facilities were concerned had been satisfied. I suppose those are nice reasons for stopping, but I should like to refer to what the minister said in the House of Commons on November 27, 1978, when she introduced the bill. At that time she was attempting to justify the introduction of Bill C-2, and there was no mention of objectives having been achieved. As reported at pages 1519 and 1520 of Hansard, the minister said:
-despite the reduction due to the fiscal constraints which we think are essential to put the Canadian economy back to full productivity.
Health Resources Fund Act
The minister suggested that the real reason for the introduction of the bill was not because the objectives in health care had been achieved, but because of financial restraints. As reported at pages 1520 and 1521 of Hansard, the minister said:
Regretfully it is to be terminated now because of the difficult conditions in the country.
I cannot put it nearly as well as the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, but obviously it was not a cabinet decision; it was the decision of our president or emperor, as he is sometimes referred to. Suddenly we required cuts in our national expenditures, and the Minister of National Health and Welfare was told to make these cuts. The minister used the economy as the reason for depriving our health institutions of $84 million. I do not know how the minister can explain this contradiction. Of course, we are becoming accustomed to contradictions; the list is as long as my arm; nothing is new.
When one considers the problems associated with research, I think one has to mention also that the minister has failed to recognize that we must have long-range planning in the research community. I give her credit for recognizing this to the extent that the Medical Research Council will now be able to move ahead five years in its planning, but by promising $500 million a number of years ago and taking it away before that fund has reached its maturity, she is denying that planning function to our medical schools and to the research community, and she is taking away any opportunity they had to plan ahead.
I do not want to pursue this subject much longer, but there are two things I should like to speak to very briefly, and one is medical manpower. I raise this issue purely because the minister chose to raise it in her speech last night. We discussed this matter in committee when we considered Bill C-2 there. 1 asked the minister whether she had any true understanding of what the actual manpower status is in Canada. She had one of her experts from the department with her in the committee that day to whom she referred the question, namely Dr. Law. The interesting thing is that the department has ideas about the physician population ratio and we were quoted a bunch of figures by the minister last night, but if you ask the minister simply how many practising physicians we have in Canada, she cannot tell us. That is how absurd and how inadequate research is in this country in relation to medical manpower; she cannot tell us how many practising specialists or practising family physicians there are in Canada.


An hon. Member:: How many are there?


Bruce Halliday: That is the kind of research job the Department of National Health and Welfare should be doing, but they refuse to do it, they refuse to accept that responsibility. They come out with glib figures which look good in the papers and which make it appear as though we had many practising physicians here, but included in those figures are people like

February 2, 1979
Health Resources Fund Act
the nine of us here in the House of Commons, most of whom are not practising medicine at all, or to a limited extent. All across the country, with increasing bureaucracy, we have more and more professionals working outside the area of delivery of health care, working in some type of administrative capacity with health insurance companies or in various government bureaucracies, yet the minister says that because they are licensed physicians they should be included in the physician population ratio. I have been bugging the minister, as I have her predecessor, to give us some accurate figures, but they cannot do it even after my two or three years of pleading.
I have one final comment that I am prompted to make about one of the remarks of, once again, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) when he spoke about the need for preventive health care. I do not have to be convinced about the need for preventive health care: I am convinced about the inadequacy of governmental efforts to promote preventive medicine, there is no doubt about that. If we have a change of government before too long, we will probably be able to institute some type of incentives in this country which will encourage people to live a lifestyle that will be more conducive to the development of good health. But certainly I want to raise an issue which is a corollary to this very comment regarding preventive medicine that I think needs to be raised here. Not only does it relate to the obligations and responsibilities of the Minister of National Health and Welfare but, I suggest, it relates to the obligations of her sidekick, the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mrs. Campagnolo). She has seen fit to cut down the budget of her department by some $5 million to $6 million this year. I was disappointed to hear today, for instance, her announcement of a gift or a grant or some such thing of about $5 million to three cities in Canada for the promotion of professional sport to NHL level. I am a follower of professional sport in Canada. As a matter of fact, I hope to see the Toronto Maple Leafs and Montreal Canadiens play tomorrow night. I have a lot of respect for our professional teams in Canada. There is a real need for them and I think they serve a real purpose. But when I look at the title of the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport, I see in it very little about professional sport. I wonder where she found that $15 million to hand out to the three cities, much as I think they might deserve to have better arenas, and I am sure that to some extent the money will be used by amateur sport as well. The point I want to make is that if she has that kind of money for professional sport, which is by and large self-supporting in Canada, I wonder why she cannot find some money for fitness, recreation and amateur sport which has a real bearing on the health of Canadians. If we want to talk about the need for preventive medicine here, we should take a serious look at the amount of money that is being spent in this country on amateur sport and on fitness and at the same time be mindful of the fact that the federal government spends about $400 per person per year on health care. At this year's rate we spend about $1.25 per person per year on fitness and amateur sport, most of which does not sink down to the level of the commu-

nity at which we can do something for the general health of people in Canada by providing them with an opportunity to become more involved in various types of fitness activities and of amateur sport.
I suggest that if we are going to look at the need for cutting back on $84 million in our health resources fund, the minister might well have used that money in another way. If she thinks we have reached the ultimate in our medical plant facilities, in our institutions and in our research, she might well have considered handing over some of that money to her colleague, the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport, who, I am sure, could have found a way to improve amateur sport with that money and to upgrade the fitness level across the country, thereby doing something worth while for Canadians.
I think, Mr. Speaker, you would understand, after having heard the comments of various members of the opposition- unfortunately we have heard nothing from the government side-our reluctance to support the minister in this third reading debate on Bill C-2.


Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to participate in this debate together with the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday), who has just spoken, and who was preceded by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) who led off the debate for us. I understand I will be followed by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga) who I know will make a contribution to this debate. Moreover, it is a great honour for me to participate in this debate with the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Island (Mr. Douglas) and to be in the House with him during this debate, knowing of his great contribution and pioneering effort in this whole area in the province of Saskatchewan, although he would be the first one to admit that some details of it might not have been to his liking. But in general, members on both sides of the House recognize the great contribution he has made in health care in Saskatchewan and also the contribution he made to the debate this afternoon.
It is absolutely incredible to me that in a debate as important as this one on health resources not one member on the government side has addressed himself to this problem today.
We know where their priorities are today. I have known for years where the Liberal priorities have been because they abandoned true Liberal principles years ago. It is no surprise to me that during the so-called restraint period-and previous speakers have already alluded to this-in a week when the federal government can find millions and millions of dollars to aid the paper industry in this country, an industry which has shown fantastic profits, the government is cutting the health resources fund. What in the name of God are they doing? They are curtailing the health resources fund in the same week they found millions of dollars for the paper industry which is making millions of dollars in profit. Where in the name of God are the old Liberal priorities? I will speak to that point later.
There is a lot of yelling across the way, Mr. Speaker. If hon. members opposite have prepared speeches they should get up and deliver them, but I do not suppose they have. No member
February 2, 1979

of the government will speak in the debate this afternoon because they cannot defend the indefensible-either that or they have been muzzled.
A few months ago budgetary cuts were announced, Mr. Speaker. The only reason for them was that this government has so mismanaged the economy that they have given this country the worst economic management since confederation. Who has suffered because of this? With the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), the hon. member for Athabasca, and other members of this party's social policy committee, I knew many months ago on whose back the government's restraint program would be carried. Indeed we have proof positive of it. The low income Canadian will carry the load. The first cut was in the wheat subsidy, which of course affected the price of bread and we know how important that is to people on low incomes. Next came the powdered milk subsidy, then family allowances and significant aspects of low income housing. Now, believe it or not, the health resources fund is the victim.
I have to repeat myself, Mr. Speaker, in saying that they are doing this in the same week that they seem to be able to find millions of dollars for business. Is this the Liberal policy of Mackenzie King; of Lester Pearson?


Mr. Parent:: Of Pierre Trudeau.


William Heward Grafftey: Of Pierre Trudeau? Is this the just society?


Gilbert Parent: I knew I would hit a nerve somewhere.


William Heward Grafftey: The hon. member has hit a nerve. Does the just society fight inflation on the backs of the poor and nobody else?
I am not a socialist, Mr. Speaker but I agree with many of my friends in the New Democratic Party. If there is one thing that governments must do it is care for people who are sometimes getting shafted. Why cannot this government bring in a restraint program that is more imaginative than one that is waged on the backs of those who cannot defend themselves.
The hon. member for Oxford who has just spoken and was so articulate said time and time again in committee that the minister claimed this health resources fund was being terminated because it had already fulfilled its usefulness. As he so ably put it, the minister subsequently said she really had to do that because of budgetary restraints imposed from on high. I happen to know that this fund was cut without her knowledge. That is why she is not here today to defend this bill. It was cut by Treasury Board and the Department of Finance, and the minister went right through the roof. Had it been cut with her knowledge and consent she would be here to defend herself today and would have her minions here to defend her, but she as been muzzled.
The minister said she had consulted the provinces, Mr. Speaker, and that they were quite happy-that the fund had fulfilled its usefulness. However, I made a long distance
Health Resources Fund Act
telephone call to each of the ten provinces to find out the facts. This fund was cut without consent from the provinces. Not one provincial minister of health said that the fund had fulfilled its usefulness. I wonder if the minister could come into this House this afternoon or next week and name one provincial minister who told her or her officials that the fund had fulfilled its usefulness.
There is only one reason for the fund being cut, Mr. Speaker. This government has so mismanaged the economy it has had to make cuts in many fields. The cut in the social field falls on the backs of those Canadians who cannot defend themselves.
I should like to return to the very able speech made by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands who has done so much in this field. Let me draw an analogy.
Suppose that tomorrow morning most of us were sitting in a city council and agreed that every body in the city should have free bread and we passed an ordinance or regulation to that effect. The second thing we would do would be to vote income supplementation into people's pockets in order to pay for that bread. I assume that the third thing to be done would be to get in touch with the bakers and tell them to manufacture the bread to meet the demand. What has been done with medical and health care services in Canada, though? Generally speaking, not because of men who have done so well in Saskatchewan, like the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, but because of the stupidity of this government, we have invariably voted income supplementation.
I wish the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) would make a speech-if he is allowed to. Maybe the ministers have been muzzled too.


Mr. Cullen:: I apologize for interrupting the hon. member, Mr. Speaker. I was not laughing at him, or with him for that matter. I wanted to point out that something like 30 cabinet ministers backed this bill. It was supported at second reading. The minister is not here this afternoon because she has other responsibilities.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Just 30 ministers? What about the others?


William Heward Grafftey: We can imagine what would happen in the city, Mr. Speaker, if after passing an ordinance for free bread and voting income supplementation into people's pockets to buy that bread, it turned out no bread was available. We do not have to imagine the chaos. The population would be starving.
Is it possible the same stupidity is being imposed on our population vis-a-vis medical health care services? We have decreed that every Canadian should have free health care service and we have voted income supplementation into people's pockets for those services, but what about the third step?
Some members who spoke ahead of me talked about preventive medicine. I am aware that the initial concept of the health resources fund was for educational institutions and research. It was meant to be the government's centrepiece, to make sure

February 2, 1979
Health Resources Fund Act
that the plan and personnel were in place, if one is to be guided by the speeches made when the fund was set up.
The plan has been imposed on the provinces, and we have been through that debate, Mr. Speaker. It is public policy that the services should be there for everybody in the country, and it is public policy that we are going to vote income supplementation into people's pockets for those services.
Initially the health resources fund was the government's acknowledgement that it had to play a leadership role with the provinces. As the hon. member for Oxford and the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands have said, it indicated that the plan, the doctors, the institutions, the research facilities-the whole infrastructure, was there.
Today the government has the unmitigated gall to tell us they are cancelling the health resources fund because it has completed stage one of what in my view should be a ten-stage program.
Sometimes it is difficult to determine whether the fund is in the preventive field or the curative field.
Doctors who have already spoken in this debate, such as the hon. member for Oxford and the hon. member for Athabasca, have suggested that it should be an ongoing fund. I challenge the government to come before this House and say that they have had provincial consent to end this fund. That is just not true. The provinces were not consulted, so how could they have ever said that the fund has fulfilled its usefulness?
Originally the fund was set up for research at the university level. Past federal ministers of health and welfare have said time and again that before we can make sense and rationalize either the cost or planning of services we need to rationalize community planning. At the centre of community planning for the delivery of rational and humane medical and health care services is a high degree of emphasis on preventive medicine, home care, community clinics, emergency care research, the facilities and training of paramedical people, extended care centres, chronic care hospitals, and the list goes on. All these things go into the mix of rationalizing a proper organization for community planning, and all these things can be affected directly or indirectly by the extension of the ongoing health resources fund which the minister is cutting by this legislation.
Very often in this House or outside and in committee ministers talk about our supposedly enviable doctor population ratio in Canada as compared to other countries. It may be enviable in a global sense, but the fact is there are still many underserviced areas in this country, whether it be from the lack of primary care by physicians, specialists or paramedical people. This situation could be rectified with a proper exten-tion of the health resources fund. The facts are here for all to see, that this fund is not being cut because the provinces want it or because it has fulfilled its purpose in terms of its phase one objective, but because of the worst economic management this country has seen since confederation. It is being cut by a government that is waging a restraint program on the backs of

the less deserved, less fortunate in this country, and on the backs of the low-income Canadians.
The community hospital should be at the hub of health care and medical services in the community. Medical experts and government planning experts have talked about proper health care service for decades now, but it cannot be realized unless we have public funds allocated for planning and personnel. The only instrument in respect of which the federal authorities had to take initiatives was the very fund which the government is attempting to cut off by this legislation, namely, the health resources fund.
In looking back at the great social initiatives of the St. Laurent government, the Diefenbaker government and the Pearson government-and I am being objective about this-in bygone decades, times before the present, disastrous Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) came to power, we are looking at total annual budgets of $6 billion, I shudder at what we have now. Under the present Prime Minister, who is responsible for devastating our economy, we have seen our total budget go up tenfold from approximately $6 billion to approximately $60 billion. How can they possibly consider themselves a government of a just society? I challenge members opposite, who have voted for increasing the budget by tenfold, session after session to name one major social program they have brought in over the past ten years. They cannot.
This government, while ruining the economy, has not brought in one major social initiative in ten years. The best thing they can do, while passing out millions of dollars to the pulp and paper industry, is to cut out the health resources fund. Where are the great Liberal policies of the past? It is simply "ad hockery" and opportunities which we are seeing from this government. The people of Canada are waiting to turn them out because they are awful.


Mr. Young:: How much has the GNP gone up?


William Heward Grafftey: I notice that members opposite are interrupting from their seats because they have been muzzled and ordered not to embarrass their Prime Minister by speaking.
Never in the history of a country in the western world have expenditures gone up tenfold in ten years without the introduction of one major social program. Can the government refute that; no. That is why they are sitting down and not speaking today.
I can well remember the number of federal-provincial meetings held in good faith to get this fund launched. At that time I am sure the provinces did not even imagine that the federal government would just pull out, leaving them holding the bag. Is this co-operative federalism? The reason this country is in such a mess today, vis-a-vis unity and federal-provincial relations, is because of actions like this. Is this sort of unilateral pulling-out of programs the kind of federal-provincial consultation and co-operation that the government feels will help the atmosphere of unity in Canada? I do not think so.
Within the past ten days it has been reported by reliable news media that Liberal backbenchers and senior civil servants
February 2, 1979

in the hon. lady's department are saying that her department is in a mess, that she has lost control, and that she has no co-ordinated policies. Members opposite, so-called government supporters and senior civil servants have said that this is nothing but a bunch of "ad hockery" and that the whole department has broken down because of a lack of leadership from the hon. lady. No single item underlines this more than the fact that the government is now asking us to cut back the health resources fund, a fund which has not even completed stage one of its objective. This is not only a very sad day for the country, but for the people of Canada who expect and deserve better, and who will be getting and expecting better in a very few months.


Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, we have opposed this bill primarily for two reasons. One reason is the high-handed method the government used to introduce the legislation and its failure to consult with the provinces.
It was a unilateral decision with an announcement to the press, followed five days later by a telex to the provincial health ministers informing them that the fund would be terminated.
The other reason we oppose this bill is because of its detrimental effect on research, by cutting off funds for medical research to an even greater degree than the minister and her predecessors have done over the past decade.
In reviewing the comments made by her on second reading of this bill we find that the minister used the word "dramatic". She said that the government has to take dramatic steps in its restraint program. Whether she realized it or not, she hit the nail on the head when she said that, because those are the only kinds of cuts this government is making in its restraint program-those which are dramatic, and those which evoke or stimulate an outcry of response from the people of Canada. When this kind of dramatic cut is examined carefully, it is revealed as nothing more than political grandstanding. If the government was serious about making cuts it would forget about drama and would look into the Auditor General's report. If ministers took time to study this report they would see the hundreds of pages of suggestions as to where the efficiency of government could be improved and where improved accountability methods could save millions of dollars.
For some strange reason however, these recommendations appear year after year in the Auditor General's report, but each year the circumstances are worse. The government talks about dramatic cuts in spending but seems to avoid those recommendations which would not be so dramatic but which would correct the extravagant waste of millions of dollars.
We in this party have to object to that kind of an approach, an approach by a government that is more concerned with drama than with increasing efficiency and doing something about the excessive waste imposed by its practices and policies.
Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are not very impressed with the proposals contained in this bill.
Health Resources Fund Act
As the minister indicated, the health resources fund was established in 1966. The sum of S500 million was set aside to assist provinces in the establishment of health training and research facilities. About 25 per cent of this was to go toward research. So far $416 million has either been committed or already spent. The proposal in this bill as it was originally drawn would allow the federal government to welsh on its commitment to the tune of $84 million. Of that fund, three-quarters was allocated to the construction of facilities for training health professionals, acquiring research equipment and training Canada's brilliant young people for careers in the health field.
Through its austerity the government has decided to chop this fund. The thing that concerns us most is the method used, which again is typical of this government. It did not bother to tell the provinces in advance; it did not bother to consult with the provinces in advance, but just sent a telex about five days after the intention was made public.
In a federal system direct consultation among the responsible governments is essential as a means of ensuring that the goals of all governments are better integrated and more sensitive to the regional and national requirements. For a federal-provincial system of government to operate smoothly, effectively and for the benefit of the people, there must be mutual respect between the provincial and federal governments. There must be a mutual feeling of trust.
The provinces need to trust the federal government. If the federal government makes a commitment, they need to rely on that in order to plan for the future. When the federal government takes the position that commitments are made to be broken, the feeling of trust breaks down. This is why the federal-provincial system has broken down and why unity in this country has been so shattered in the ten years of this regime.
I mentioned earlier that about one-quarter of this fund has been allocated toward medical research. We already know from previous comments made in the House, and indeed from comments made by representatives of the research community both inside and outside of parliament, that funding of medical research has already been seriously eroded. Unsalvageable damage has been done to the research capability of this country. As well, numerous laboratories are idle. Hundreds of research workers have left the country or have left their careers to do other things in order to keep body and soul together. Various technicians have been relieved of their duties and are on the already bulging unemployment rolls. In general, the policies of this government have been creating havoc in research and have caused stagnation in the general attitude toward research. It is nothing short of criminal negligence when funds are cut for health research and facilities in this way. We know that in the long run every human being in this country will be affected during his or her lifetime. This government seems to be saying in this particular instance that the saving of dollars seems to be more important than good health. In my view, and I am sure hon. members will agree, this is certainly false.
2856

February 2, 1979
Health Resources Fund Act
I want to touch briefly on another matter, Mr. Speaker, and that has to do with the Indian health services guidelines which were implemented only a few weeks ago. The minister indicated that she felt the Indian people as a whole were abusing the health care services that were provided. I want to object to that sort of criticism because I do not see why that particular group of people should be singled out. It is quite easy to see that some people in every group in society are abusing the health care system, to some extent.
Bill C-2 is a cutback bill in the area of health services. The concept of health, if it is to be meaningful, must be viewed in the broadest possible context. The context must encompass the physical and social aspects of a person's well-being. It cannot refer only to the absence of disease. Indian people do not enjoy the state of health enjoyed by other Canadians. This is revealed most dramatically by statistics. The statistics with respect to the health of the Indian people in my province are horrifying. If the minister is concerned about anybody abusing the medical services in this country, she should not single out the weakest group in our society, the Indian people.
In concluding my contribution to this debate, may I commend the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk), who is our critic in this area. His participation in this debate has been very worth while, I would also like to commend the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) who outlined the needs of our native people in this country extremely well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, what about a Liberal?


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Speaker, I hesitated for a moment-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. There was another hon. gentleman standing up. I did not see the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis).


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a good deal of interest to the debate. This is a subject which brings back some personal memories. For some nine years, from 1951-1960, I was employed in the Department of National Health and Welfare as an economist. At that time one of the responsibilities of my section was an analysis of the national health grants and their impact. These grants had been introduced in the period following the second world war by the government of the Rt. Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King. As prime minister he intervened in the debate when the legislation establishing the national health grants was introduced. Mr. King said at that time that a fundamental prerequisite to health insurance was the concept of health grants. These grants were to be the instrument of making sure we had the resources both in the capital facilities and in the trained personnel to provide services to the people of Canada on a scale which we hoped to provide. The history of these grants has been described in many different places. The nature of the grants has changed. New grants were introduced. The medical rehabilitation branch was introduced in the late 1950s, for
example. As we look back today we see that the operation of this program has achieved a good deal of its purpose. No doubt we have not achieved all the purposes in mind. The minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) in her remarks the other day pointed to the hospital construction grant, a tremendous contribution that has taken place through the encouragement and incentive that was offered. In those days the grant was only $1,000 per bed. That does not sound much in the days of the cheap dollars we have today. At that time it was an incentive to an orderly planning and extension of hospital facilities, and so on down the line. A good deal of the funds were dedicated to medical research. The minister has pointed out that the Medical Research Council is now to be the instrument through which an extended program of grants takes place. National objectives will be undertaken under the very competent advice of professionals named by that council.
What puzzles me when I listen to members opposite is their inconsistency. They tell us they are going to start everything on zero-based budgeting and then prove the need for programs. They are all for reducing deficits, except now and again they want a stimulating deficit. One never quite knows.


Mr. Nystrom:: It is only three months.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Time comes into it. I referred to members of the opposition. I wish to exclude members of the New Democratic Party who have not been part of that argument.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I suggest that members opposite look at this bill as a bit of zero-based budgeting. That is what they will appeal to the electorate on, if we can believe what they are saying. Mind you, they may change their minds. That is their privilege.
The government is saying that after a period of 30 years, since 1948, we are now going to go to a zero-based budgeting approach on health resource funding. It is going to look at health research, the shortage of personnel, justify what is needed and, if specific programs are needed, and if the case is sold, these will be provided by the government and by parliament. They will be provided by this government.
Hon. members opposite say the program is not over, that 30 years is not enough. They say we should keep it going, that we should vote more money and that it is a betrayal of something or other not to keep it going.
The government is saying the time has come to again start from scratch in this area and look at our objectives and our needs, justify the allocation of resources and the relationship to them, and that this is part of an over-all program of restraint.
It is not easy for me in the seat I represent to defend restraint. I represent a seat in the national capital that has a very large number of public servants, many of whom are carrying the burden of the implementation of these policies. We have the difficulty of eliminating the 5,000 positions

February 2, 1979

declared redundant under the directives which have emanated from Treasury Board. This has not been painless.
I listened to members on the other side talk about the painless method of eliminating 20,000 positions a year for three years. All I know is the people I represent will not buy that. The credibility of the people who try to say they can do all of this painlessly is not going to be accepted either.
If the members of the official opposition mean zero-based budgeting, they have to start practising it somewhere. They cannot say it should not start in the health resources, not any place you look, that it is always a decision to be made somewhere else, and tomorrow. We are biting the bullet. We say the bill represents a decision to reduce a program which has had a very general over-all effect in the health resources funding area. We say we are going to justify the allocations sector by sector, case by case, where they are needed from now on.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to give way to my hon. friend for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) because it is somewhat disconcerting to be involved in a debate where the government side is shocked into silence. As a matter of fact, you cannot get a debate unless you have give and take across the chamber.
The hon. member for Ottawa West has now stated his case which is in some respects typical of the posture he takes. He does not always agree with government policy. However, in this instance he does agree with the legislation before the House in which the government is asking for third reading passage to meet the needs of the health programs in Canada at the present time.
I wish to say at the outset that this expresses the problem we are confronted with at the present time. We are not able to debate this important piece of legislation from a dispassionate standpoint on the basis of its merit, and there is nothing more important than the health and well-being of Canadians everywhere. Rather, we are debating the matter in an electioneering atmosphere. Obviously the government has told its supporters to be silent because the posture they are taking with regard to this matter is indefensible and they want to get this over with as quickly as possible.
Unfortunately the House and the country have been poised on the brink of this kind of uncertainty for almost a year. Parliament has been turned into a huge election machine. Nothing is done unless it is with the government's eye on the election potential.
The confusion that surrounds this piece of legislation at this time arose from the sudden reversal of policy by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). It was a fundamental reversal of policy, a 180 degree change when he spoke over television last August 1 and tried to redirect a government that had been wasteful to the nth degree. It had dragged the Canadian economy down to the level of disaster. They suddenly tried to reverse the whole posture and appear as a government led by a Prime Minister advocating restraint.
Health Resources Fund Act
This not only shook up the whole country, but it shook up the cabinet as well, particularly the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) who indicated in a press conference at that time that he really did not know what was going on with respect to government policy. All of us who watched that press club interview over television had great sympathy for the Minister of Finance. He had been placed in an impossible position by the sudden change in direction of the Prime Minister. It is not the first change in direction, as Charles Lynch stated in a recent column. It is the tenth manifestation of the Prime Minister of Canada. We do not know what the position is going to be from one moment to the next.
It is obvious the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) was placed in the same position of uncertainty, not knowing the direction the Prime Minister was charting, or if he even knew the direction he was charting. She was immediately faced with severe cutbacks on policies which the hon. member for Ottawa West referred to with some degree of positive appreciation this afternoon. We agree with that. However, suddenly there is a cutback which faces the provinces that are very dependent on the federal government for leadership, both in terms of its over-all approach to health and welfare and also for the financial basis of health and welfare programs.
Here are some of the cuts: $55 million in equalization grants, $150 million by deferring the community services program, $160 million by deferring the social services legislation. I want to pause there for a moment. For six or seven years we have been promised that there would be a major breakthrough in health and welfare programs with the introduction of the long-anticipated social services legislation. It began with a five-year review which produced the orange paper under the leadership of a former minister of national health and welfare who is now the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde). Seven years later, we are still being given nothing but hope and promises with regard to this legislation. But let me continue with the recital of the cutbacks. They include $25 million under the public utilities income tax transfer, making a total of $390 million and the bill presently before the House would increase that amount by $29.5 million, bringing it up to $420 million. One can understand that the Minister of National Health and Welfare who assumed the portfolio a little over a year ago was faced with an impossible situation. As my hon. friend from Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) said in his speech last evening, she was obliged to take a scatter gun approach in trying to cope with it.
I have read her speeches with great care. She is obviously trying to put the best possible face on the situation, trying to give the government a humanitarian face, though that is an impossibility. I believe her heart is in the right place, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said; he believes the minister is trying to do her best in circumstances which have been created by the policies of her leader. She demonstrated this quality when she was faced with protests from the Indian community-I shall not dwell on that
80047-39l/2

February 2, 1979
Health Resources Fund Act
subject because it has been dealt with by several speeches from this side. It is incomprehensible that the government would attack the most vulnerable group with respect to health care by removing rights which are not only traditional but established by treaty. If there is any group which should be able to claim the benefits of health care from the government it is the aboriginal population. Yet the minister was forced to make the irrational move of cutting back the health services they have traditionally enjoyed. Faced with the facts, she had to acknowledge that it was an impossible situation and she delayed a final decision for six months. That will just happen to coincide with the end of the next election and that is why I say we cannot deal with this legislation in any spirit of reality; it is all being debated under the prospect of an imminent election.
I should like to compliment the minister in another regard. Hon. members will be aware that I have been promoting a private member's motion for four or five years making the simple request that we should deal in depth with the problems, both physical and mental, of the disabled community of this country. All we are seeking is a committee to co-ordinate our activities in this field. That proposition has been repeatedly turned down, but I did receive a letter from the minister dated December 5 which indicates that she is wrestling with this problem and wishes to do something about it even though the social services legislation will not be in place in time for the 1980 World Congress on Rehabilitation. She says in her letter:
You can infer from these comments that a new motion along the line of your previous ones will receive my endorsation and support.
I appreciate that gesture of support and goodwill; it seems it should have been given long ago. We are now faced with the situation that our social services legislation will not be in place in time for Rehabilitation International, the worldwide community of people and organizations interested in rehabilitation which Canada is hosting in Winnipeg in 1980. I have been talking about the marvellous breakthrough which was on the horizon because we would be implementing the new legislation. At least, the minister recognized her obligations and responsibility and is giving her support to the motion. So we shall get together a committee which will make it possible for representatives of the voluntary sector of the rehabilitation movement in this country to clarify their plans. There are at least 48 separate organizations led by the Canadian Rehabilitation Council for the Disabled which are making preparations for this great congress. Six thousand people from around the world will be meeting in Winnipeg and we shall be able to hear from those representatives of the voluntary sector; we shall be able to get it all together and make a report on the state of rehabilitation in Canada which will be available as background information.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could call it four o'clock now; I am approaching another aspect in my speech?


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being four o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, notices of motions, and private bills.
Item No. 9, the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Siddon). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Stand by unanimous consent.
Item No. 10, the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Stand by unanimous consent.
Item No. 13, the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle). Shall the item stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Item No. 14, the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall). Shall the item stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Item No. 15, the hon. member for York-Centre (Mr. Kaplan). Shall the item stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Item No. 16, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro). Shall the item stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Item No. 17, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen). Shall the item stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Item No. 19, the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga). Shall this item be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.
February 2, 1979


SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT
Stanley Stanford Schumacher: that Bill C-220, respecting the presence of the flags of Canada in both Houses of parliament, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to propose and explain the provisions of Bill C-220, which would provide for the display in the House of Commons and the Senate of the other Canadian flag, the Union Jack.
To the uninitiated my bill might seem a reactionary proposal; the placing of a symbol of the British Empire within the precincts of a building which the BBC has called Britain's first, but not last, export of fairyland parliamentary gothic.
But seriously, hon. members should realize two facts: first, the Parliament of Canada, after approving the Maple Leaf flag in December of 1964 immediately designated the Union Jack as another legal and legitimate Canadian flag; and second, the legitimacy of that flag is enforced by its special role as a reminder of our loyalty to the Crown and of our membership in the Commonwealth of nations.
I would like to examine these aspects of the symbolism of the Union Jack with a view to analysing why it should be displayed in this chamber.
To begin with, the Union Jack reminds us of our loyalty to the Crown. Indeed, Canada has always been a monarchy in an unbroken line. From the day that Jacques Cartier planted the fleur-de-lis of the Bourbon kings on the soil of New France in 1534 we have been a royal people whether under French, British or, since 1867 and more particularly 1831, a Canadian monarch.
In 1867 Canadians deliberately and freely chose the monarchy as their system of government. They could have adopted any other form of administration, but they chose, as do their descendents today, deliberately and specifically to maintain a constitutional monarchy, reflective of Canada's heritage dominant in Canada's present, and essential to Canada's future.
In chorus, unbroken from the earliest days, Canadian leaders, citizens and various constitutional conferences of more recent times have methodically decided that Canada should continue to be a sovereign state of which the Queen is head.
Indeed, one might add parenthetically that the monarchy even antedates the arrival of French colonists, for it, in a rather absolute variety, was the form of government known to Indian tribes in the millennium before the white man ever set foot upon this continent.
Of course, the constitutional monarchy is more democratic than a republic, for the Queen of Canada represents all Canadians. A president or other elected head of state would be a divisive factor in our land, as he would owe his selection to some political faction or other. This could divide him from
Flags of Canada
many of his countrymen and make his claim to represent all Canadians less convincing. This danger is inherent in the kind of muddled thinking which obtains in some quarters these days where it is fashionable to suggest that the monarchy and the person of the sovereign are mere ceremonial trappings and where these revisionists would claim the full amplitude of Canadian government is represented in the office of governor. However, now is not the time to enter that debate, but to reflect that the Queen and her heirs have been trained from birth for one profession and therefore by the most ultimate form of democracy-the chance arrangement of genes-they have become the Canadians most eligible to assume their important position.
It is worth noting that the most stable of democracies in the world today, our constitutional monarchy, is in direct contrast to the unstable tyrannies which are so often typified by a republican form of government. Indeed, we have a twentieth century monarchy for, through modern communication devices, Canadians can participate fully in their Queen's life wherever she may be, and she herself, when allowed, is able to visit and is aware of more parts of Canada than most Canadians.
Then, of course, newcomers to Canada today can either identify with the monarchy because they come from countries which enjoy that form of government or feel a special affection for their new sovereign because she typifies unity, rule of law and decency, which have all too often been absent in the countries from which they have fled.
The colour and ceremony surrounding our monarchy attracts the interest of all Canadians, especially the young, in our process of government. No less an ardent French Canadian nationalist than Henri Bourassa referred more than once to "the Crown we have come to respect".
The monarchy, despite its detractors' efforts to paint a contrary picture, is popular in French Canada. Historically, Francophone Canadians have three times chosen the monarchy. Their cultural and religious leaders rejected the overtures to join the rebellious colonists during the American revolution in 1776. They participated enthusiastically in the choice of the monarchy as the new state's form of government in 1867 and continued to accept it, as evidenced by the strong support given to the maintainance of the monarchical system by Premier Levesque and his minister of intergovernmental affairs, Claude Morin, at recent federal-provincial conferences.
Our Queen is a fluent speaker of the French language, and the early history of her house is closely bound with that of the French crown and French culture. Moreover, the Crown has always been an emblem of the guarantee that the rights of any minority will not be trampled by the will of a majority.
Now, continuing to reflect on why the flag most closely associated in Canada with the Crown and our Queen should stand in this chamber, let us remember that the Queen is the bond joining each Canadian to each of his fellow citizens.

February 2, 1979
Flags of Canada
When a new Canadian swears his oath of allegiance, he makes a personal contract to bear true and faithful allegiance to his sovereign. Thus, the immigrant acquires a lifelong tie in common with all other Canadians.
That the Queen is part of parliament, despite the best efforts of some, reflected in Bill C-60, to remove her; that she gives royal assent to legislation; that laws are enacted in her name and bear the year of her reign; that she provides the framework for orderly transaction to elected governmental officers; that the army, the mails and the civil service function in her name: these are not the accidents of history. These are not the curiosities of legal draftsmanship. They stand at the centre of the Canadian constitution, safeguards of Her Majesty's right to be consulted, to encourage and to warn and to provide practically the only check on the untrammelled growth of the power of the political executive.
In 1973, speaking in Toronto, Her Majesty said:
I want the Crown to be seen as a symbol of national sovereignty belonging to all. It is not only a link between Commonwealth nations, but between Canadian citizens of every national origin and ancestry. The Crown is an idea more than a person, and I want the Crown in Canada to represent everything that is best and most admired in the Canadian ideal. I will continue to do my best to make it so during my lifetime, and I hope you will all continue to give me your help in this task.
No one can argue that Her Majesty has kept and continues to keep this pledge, although how much help she has had from some of her ministers in the interim is at the very least debatable.
Thus, as we sit here in this chamber day by day and are looked upon not only by the thousands of young Canadians, especially who sit in the gallery and see our deliberations, but also by the new-found audience of millions brought to us here through television, I ask: is it not well that the flag standing for our affection and duty to Our Sovereign Lady and to the Crown she personifies should be displayed next to Your Honour's chair, a boast of that affection freely given and perhaps the departure point for many questions which will be asked by young Canadians about the significance of that flag, the answers to which will increase their knowledge of our country's institutions?
Of course, Mr. Speaker, we should not forget the second stated purpose of parliament to retain the Union Jack as a flag of Canada, namely, to stand for our membership in the Commonwealth, that unique association of sovereign states with vastly differing populations, traditions and systems of government, which, nonetheless, forms one of the few, if not the only, non-governmentally allied international communities on this shrinking planet.
I do not need to remind hon. members of the many contacts, exchanges and programs which enrich both our own experience and those of other Canadians through the various associations which promote international relationships. But, in that the centre of the Commonwealth is an allegiance to the Crown, and in that Canada is the most senior member of that body, again I ask: is it not well that the flag standing for that

shared allegiance and multinational association stand here in this chamber again to provoke questions for the uninitiated and to remind the more tutored of our international dimensions?


Mr. Robert Daudlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in this debate with a feeling almost of deja vu in that although I was not in this place at the time the great flag debate took place, certainly I was one of those concerned Canadians who listened with interest to what was said here.
Before I get into that aspect of the debate, I think it would be unwise of me to leave unchallenged some of the references made by the hon. member who preceded me to Bill C-60 and particularly the claim he makes that members of this government, or indeed any member of the House, would attempt by that bill to denigrate in any way royalty, the Crown, the Queen or anything having to do with the royal family.
Members of this government and members on this side of the House both in and outside the House have taken the position and have attempted to make clear-and obviously have not made it clear enough for the hon. member to understand-that the words used in Bill C-60 are not intended or designed to remove any of the rights or the authority of the Crown. What they are attempting to do is to delineate, underscore or describe, if you will, the status quo and what in fact is the current position of the Crown and the monarchy in Canada. I am sure the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has said this in words more eloquent than I can repeat this afternoon, but if those words are not sufficient to describe what is the state of things, then let those persons who feel they do not provide those words that would describe the current state of the Crown, and again I say, not the Crown of 1900 or the Crown of 1867, but the monarchy as it exists today. Surely that is what was intended by the bill and that is what continues to be the intention of the government, as I understand it.
The debate today in a sense almost transports us back to 1964 when the House debated the flag. It was emotional, it was lengthy, and covered the merits of adopting a distinctive flag for Canada, a flag that would reflect our identity as a nation. It was a worthy debate. Those few members who were present in the House at that time may well recall the arguments which took place then. However, the majority of us, as I indicated earlier, were in other places, occupied with other concerns, and although we may have followed the debate with some interest, I think it might be enlightening and useful in the discussion of this bill to outline some of the history behind our national flag and the reasons why parliament in 1964 adopted the practices that surround its display in the House of Commons and in the Senate.
It is hard for us to imagine the emotion and strong feelings that were reflected in the debates at that time. By now, most Canadians have accepted the red maple leaf flag as the symbol of our aspirations, our ambitions, our legitimate national pride, our unity, our loyalty, our Canadian nationality. In spite of the many reservations expressed in 1964, I think that the majority of Canadians have developed an attachment for that flag and
February 2, 1979

what it stands for. In fact, the word "attachment" may even be understanding the case, because many Canadians have developed a respect, and some a love, for the flag that would be very gratifying to those in the government, especially the late prime minister, the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, who was instrumental in introducing it before the House.
But such pride and acceptance were by no means assured back in 1964. There were many who were strongly attached to the great union flag, more commonly known as the Union Jack, and there were others equally partisan in favour of the Red Ensign, which for many years has served as the de facto Canadian flag. These supporters were difficult to convince of the need for a unique and distinctive Canadian flag, and they mounted a vigorous opposition which at several points threatened to delay and perhaps scuttle the government's plans to introduce the single red maple leaf flag so familiar to us today.
In the present context, when we are being asked to consider the introduction of the Royal Union flag within the chambers of the House of Commons and the Senate, I think we should review and reflect upon the decision of the House in 1964 to limit the Union Jack to be used as a symbol of Canada's membership in the Commonwealth of nations and of her allegiance to the Crown. This decision was not taken lightly or without a great deal of reflection. In giving primacy to the national flag, and in limiting the use of the Union Jack to certain occasions, such as the official observance of the Queen's birthday, the anniversary of the Statute of Westminster, and the occasion of royal visits and certain Commonwealth gatherings, the House was making a strong and deliberate statement on the subject of Canadian identity.
Much thought had been given to the ideal design for a Canadian flag. The committee of the House that was formed to choose a suitable design reviewed hundreds of suggestions sent in by experts and by the public at large. Design after design was eliminated until only three were left. Some of you may recall them: there was a red and white design containing the Union Jack and three fleurs-de-lis, a design incorporating three maple leaves on a white background with a narrow bar of blue at either end, and the familiar red flag with a single red maple leaf on a central white square. As we all know, on October 22, 1964, the House voted unanimously in favour of the single leaf flag that has become so integral a part of our lives. It was officially proclaimed and flown for the first time on Parliament Hill on February 15, 1965-in the words of John Matheson, member of parliament for Leeds, Ontario, who had originally been charged with the responsibility for finding a new flag design, "a flag of dignity and grace, worthy of a great sovereign nation".
Speaking in 1979, it is difficult to project oneself back into the atmosphere of those pre-1964 days and to imagine a time when this nation lacked an official, central symbol of its own identity. Following confederation in 1867, the Union Jack of Britain was retained as the official flag of Canada. That was perhaps appropriate at the time because Canada was still a colony of Great Britain and not a full-fledged nation. Our first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, reacting to the first
Flags of Canada
stirrings of Canadian nationalism, requested formal approval from the British Admiralty in 1874 to use the Red Ensign, bearing the provincial arms of the four provinces then in confederation, as the official Canadian flag. This approval was denied until 1892, and even then it was granted only on the condition that its use be confined to Canadian merchant ships on the high seas. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that Canadians continued to fly the Red Ensign, on land as well as on sea, until the outbreak of the Boer War, when a resurgence of imperial feeling throughout the British Empire revived popular support for the Union Jack, and the Red Ensign was removed from all Canadian public buildings. Therefore, during the First World War Canadians fought and died under the Union Jack. For all intents and purposes they were considered to be British troops, in spite of the fact that most of their regimental badges contained such distinctively Canadian symbols as the maple leaf and the beaver, and that Canadians distinguised themselves in their valorous stands at such battlefields as Vimy Ridge and Ypres.
After the First World War, Canadian nationalism once again became a strong force, and King George V was persuaded, on the recommendation of the government of Sir Arthur Meighen, to grant a Canadian Coat of Arms in 1921. This was incorporated quickly into the Red Ensign, and in 1924 the Canadian government authorized the use of the Ensign on all Canadian buildings outside Canada. Canadians were left in the very peculiar position of being able to fly the Red Ensign outside but not inside their country. Even after the passing of the Statute of Westminster in 1931 when Canada became a fully autonomous nation, the Union Jack remained the official flag. There were numerous attempts by members of parliament during the 1930s to introduce flag motions in the House.
During the Second World War, a distinctive battle flag was designed by the Department of National Defence for use by Canadian troops. It was not a popular success. Many people, and indeed members of the House who were familiar with the military, cannot indicate the design of that flag. In 1943 a return was made to the Red Ensign which was authorized to be flown by the Canadian army formations overseas. After the war the then prime minister, the Right Hon. Mackenzie King, announced that he would recommend to parliament the adoption of a distinctive national flag. In the meantime, a 1945 order in council was passed which indicated that until a national flag was adopted, the Red Ensign would be flown over federal buildings both inside and outside the country. This temporary expedient proved to be a much more enduring one than even Mackenzie King would have envisaged. The new flag design placed before parliament in 1946 was rejected on the grounds that it might not be acceptable to all Canadians. In spite of periodic attempts to revive the flag issue, the nation remained in a state of limbo, in so far as the flag was concerned, until 1964 and the events I have already described.
I do not mean to abuse the patience of the House by giving this lengthy history of our attempts to adopt a truly Canadian flag. Instead, I think it is a necessary background to discus-

February 2, 1979
Flags of Canada
sions of this bill. For years as a nation we were without one of the central symbols of nationhood. During that time we struggled to identify who we were as a people. As we slowly severed the links of colonial status we gradually came to an understanding that our flag, whatever it might be, could not be a copy or a derivative of any other nation's flag. It would have to be distinctly our own, using symbols which were unmistakably Canadian and embedded in our history.
The final choice admirably fulfils this requirement. In heraldic terms it is described as "gules in red on a Canadian pale argent of white a maple leaf of the first". The maple leaf, the central feature of the flag, is perhaps the quintessential Canadian symbol. As early as 1700 it was already in use in Canada. In 1834 it was adopted by the Saint-Jean-Baptiste society as its emblem. By 1860, when the Prince of Wales visited Canada, citizens of Toronto unanimously approved a motion resolving the following:
All native Canadians joining in the procession, whether identified with the national societies or not, should wear the maple leaf as the emblem of the land of their birth.
As I mentioned before, the dominant symbol of Canadian regimental badges as early as the First World War was the maple leaf. Finally this fact was recognized officially in the Coat of Arms of Canada, which in its original form had three green maple leaves on a single stem and a golden lion holding a red maple leaf above the shield. Later in 1957 the colour of the three maple leaves on the coat of arms was changed from green to red, to correspond with Canada's national colours.
Also the colours of red and white were incorporated into our flag. They strengthen the symbolic significance of the design; the red represents strength and the white purity. But beyond these two admirable qualities, they form a part of the tradition of both France and England, our two mother countries. Red was the colour of St. George's Cross and the colour borne by the French crusaders. White was the colour of the field of St. George's Cross and the colour of the banners borne by Joan of Arc. For a long time white was the colour associated with the early monarchs of France, just as red was the colour of the early kings of England. In his proclamation of the Canadian Coat of Arms in 1921, King George V officially recognized red and white as the Canadian colours. Thus, it was fitting they should form part of our flag.
Having taken 98 years to develop and agree upon this emblem of our country, it is not difficult to understand why our predecessors in the House were reluctant to authorize the equal recognition of another flag within the Canadian context. The debates of 1964 were enlightening. Many members who participated in the weeks of debate preceding the adoption of the flag were singularly unenthusiastic about the motion to adopt the Union Jack as the Commonwealth flag. This was not because hon. members lacked respect for the Union Jack and for what it stood. Many were strong supporters of the Commonwealth and the monarchy; many opposed the superseding of the traditional Union Jack and Red Ensign by any new flag. However, once the red maple leaf flag had become fact, they understood the need to stand behind their decision. There

could be no half measures and no recognition of two flags, especially two flags which stood for such different realities. Those members realized that to be a successful embodiment of this country, the flag would have to command the undivided allegiance of its citizens; it would have to be clear indication of Canada's sovereignty and nationhood; and its meaning could not be diluted by legislation which made provision for the recognition of another flag, except in the most unusual circumstances.
The amendment finally adopted limited official display of the Union Jack to those occasions I have outlined already: the Queen's birthday, royal visits, Commonwealth gatherings, the anniversary of the Statute of Westminster, and at war memorials during ceremonies marking anniversaries of events in which Canadian forces participated with other Commonwealth forces. Even on those occasions, the Canadian flag must be flown and must be given the precedence due the national flag. Of course individuals and organizations were allowed to continue to fly the historic Un;on Jack when appropriate, as long as they took into consideration the form of approval accorded it by parliament. Our predecessors wished to ensure the primacy of the new flag. In the light of subsequent events, very clearly they succeeded.
During the debates several members expressed their fears that Canada was adopting a "two flag" system which would lead ultimately to divisiveness and strife. They saw, some more clearly than others, that the national flag could become a unifying force if it were given a chance, or a source of dissent if it were not.
Looking at the Canadian flag from today's perspective, I think they adopted the correct course. There may be many sources of disunity in this country today, but I do not think the flag is one. The flag flies proudly on all our public buildings; school children wave thousands of tiny versions of it during public holidays and royal visits. It is even a popular form of window curtain among the younger generation, a use which may not be officially sanctioned but nevertheless is an index of acceptance. One of our most moving national moments occurs each July 1 when a giant Canadian flag is raised on the Peace Tower as the culminating moment of a day-long celebration.
Such widespread approbation is no accident. It is a direct result of the actions taken by the House 15 years ago. We were correct to adopt our flag then and to make it the undisputed symbol of our national consciousness. We will be correct now to oppose this bill which proposes that we take a step backward and dilute the authority we have invested in our flag. I urge the members of this House to consider carefully the long struggle toward true nationhood which preceded the adoption of our flag. I urge them to reflect upon its current stature and undisputed place in the hearts of Canadians. I hope they will conclude that in the chambers of this House, of all places, it should remain the sole and undisputed symbol of our collective identity.


Peter Elzinga: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few very short comments regarding Bill C-220 before the House at this time. I was gratified to hear the hon.
February 2, 1979

member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Daudlin) take a position in his concluding comments. I hope the hon. member has not mistaken the intent of this legislation. We in no way want to downgrade the importance of our Canadian flag, the red maple leaf of which the majority of us are very proud.
I should like to support recognition for the Union Jack in both Houses of parliament. As the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher) said, the Union Jack was recognized by an act of parliament of 1964 as one of Canada's national flags and it has played an important role in the history of our country. It signifies our place, and recognition of the role we play in the Commonwealth. For that reason I would be most happy to see it in both chambers of parliament.
I cannot help but be somewhat suspicious when hon. members opposite speak on issues associated with the monarchy. So often we see them use the monarchy for purposes of political expediency. In this chamber and throughout the country they have tried to diminish the role of the monarch in the Canadian way of life, yet when we have visits from the royal family the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is front and centre, trying to gain whatever political points he can.
As I said at the beginning, Mr. Speaker, my comments will be brief in the hope that this bill will come to a vote within the hour allotted for private members' business so that we can see where hon. members stand on issues associated with the Union Jack and with the monarchy in general.


Gilbert Parent: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the subject before us, namely the Union Jack.

I can well imagine that when this debate was going on in this House some 15 years ago, tempers were a little sharper than they are today. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was here at that time and took part in the debate. I would have welcomed the chance to put my views forward at that time as well.
I noticed earlier this afternoon that the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was in the House, Mr. Speaker. I had hoped that he would take part in the debate.
The hon. member who spoke ahead of me said that he was glad my colleague the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Daudlin) stated his position. I state my position categorically, Mr. Speaker. 1 am opposed to the Union Jack standing side by side with the Canadian flag in this chamber or in the other place. I am as opposed to that as I would be to having the tri-coulour of France if it were brought forward to take its place there.
The hon. member opposite said that our roots are deep in the traditions of England and British history. I do not deny that. Indeed, I am glad of it. This parliament stands today as a
Flags of Canada
model of what was accomplished in terms of parliamentary democracy in England. I would be the last person to make a derogatory statement about the great traditions handed down to us by England. But this was in another time, Mr. Speaker. We should remember our roots but we should also look to what we are in the present and what we hope to aspire to in the future.

Mr. Speaker, symbols have that remarkable characteristic of combining various and often complex notions in a vivifying and colourful expression. The symbolism of the Canadian flag we are talking about here reflects the history, the beliefs, the ideologies and the aspirations of Canadians who are multicultural and who today, with the passage of the Official Languages Act, are known throughout Canada. In addition, proclaimed on February 15, 1965, the maple leaf became the distinctive, sober and gracious symbol of this country, as the former hon. member for Leeds, Mr. Matheson, put it so well.
Indeed, on February 15, 1965, on Parliament Hill, in Ottawa, the ceremony of inauguration of the Canadian flag took place in the presence of the right hon. Georges Vanier, Governor General of Canada, Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson and the members of the cabinet. These words spoken on that memorable date by the hon. Maurice Bourget help emphasize the symbolic aspect of our flag which is on your right, Mr. Speaker. He said:
This flag is the symbol of the unity of this country because it represents beyond the shadow of a doubt all citizens of Canada without distinction of race, language, belief or opinion.
In 1964 the Parliament of Canada after adopting the maple leaf as the flag of Canada proclaimed the Union Jack as the official symbol of the belonging of this country to the Commonwealth. I want to describe the use made of those two flags to further emphasize the importance of our Canadian flag.
When physical facilities permit, the Union Jack flies with the Canadian flag on buildings, air terminals, military bases and establishments of the federal government within Canada on the day of the official celebration of the Queen's birthday, the anniversary of the Statute of Westminster, which is December 11, as you know, and during royal visits and certain Commonwealth meetings in this country. It can also fly with the Canadian flag at the national monument commemorating the dead of World War I and in other appropriate public places in Canada during ceremonies commemorating the anniversary of events in which Canadian and other Commonwealth forces participated. Of course, individuals and organizations can fly the Union Jack in Canada as they see fit under the regulations approved by parliament for the use of the flag.
On the other hand, the Canadian flag is, of course, flown in more places and on more occasions that the Union Jack. In general, we can see the Canadian flag from sunrise to sunset flying over all federal buildings, airports and military bases and institutions inside and outside Canada. Regulations also
2864

February 2, 1979
Flags of Canada
allow it to be flown all night. It can also be used in commercial buildings or to identify Canadian stands at exhibitions. It constitutes the normal national colours of all Canadian ships and boats, including pleasure craft. In fact, the Canada Shipping Act provides that a Canadian ship must fly the flag on a signal given by one of Her Majesty's ships or a ship on the service of the Canadian government and belonging to the government, while entering or leaving any foreign port, and if it carries a burden of 50 gross tons or more, while entering or leaving any Commonwealth port.
Foreign vessels fly the Canadian flag as a sign of courtesy when they lie at anchor in a Canadian port. In the case of merchant vessels and pleasure craft, the Canadian flag must be flown in all ports and in territorial waters. However, this rule does not apply on the high sea unless the vessel wishes to show its nationality to another ship. When a merchant vessel and a warship, whatever their nationality, cross or pass each other, the merchant vessel must salute with its flag as a show of courtesy.
Mr. Speaker, the flag is used, of course, at the unveiling of monuments, plaques and paintings, at the end of conferences or official inaugurations, on national holidays, and so on. It is also used to note the death of important personalities or officials. Thus, the flag on the Peace Tower in Ottawa is flown at half mast on the death of the sovereign or a member of the royal family, on the death of a governor general, a former governor general, a lieutenant governor, a member of the Canadian Privy Council, a senator or a federal member of parliament.
Besides being flown on top of other buildings, airports government military establishments and federal government buildings, the flag will be flown at half mast from one end of the country to the other on the death of a sovereign, a member of the royal family, the governor general, the prime minister, retired governors general, retired prime ministers or ministers of the federal cabinet. Secondly, within the confines of the provinces, the flag will be flown at half mast on the death of a lieutenant governor, the first minister of the province or any person to whom the province wishes to pay respect. Thirdly, the flag can be flown at half mast on the death of a member of a provincial legislature in his or her riding and, fourthly, the place of residence in the case of the death of a senator, a past member of the Privy Council of Canada or a mayor. [Translation]
The flag is also flown at half mast on federal buildings and elsewhere according to special instructions on the death of members of the royal family other than the sovereign or of persons related in the first degree with the sovereign and his immediate family, as well as on the death of a foreign head of state or any other person whom we may wish to honour.


Such was the case after the death of President Kennedy of the United States when he was assassinated some 16 years ago.

During half-mast periods, the flag is flown to the top of the mast on all federal buildings, airports and military bases and establishments during all legal holidays, and on the Peace Tower when a chief of state visits Parliament Hill. However, that rule does not apply when flags are mid-masted on the occasion of the sovereign's death, they are hoisted to the top of the mast only the day the new monarch is proclaimed.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, on November 11, Remembrance Day, the flag on the parliament building's Peace Tower is mid-masted at 11 a.m.
In light of all those examples, hon. members will agree that our Canadian flag is significantly utilized. Even when the Queen is in Canada, Her Majesty's own Canadian flag is hoisted,

She has her own royal flag, and it is not the Union Jack because that is the flag of Britain. The royal flag varies from country to country within the Commonwealth, and the royal flag is flown in these countries when the Queen visits. [Translation]
Let me go on, Mr. Speaker, day and night the Queen's flag, a unique flag, is proudly hoisted on any building where she is residing or in which she is attending an official or public reception. Generally, the colours also fly behind the tribune where Her Majesty is saluted by the troops she is reviewing, and on Her Majesty's ships when she is aboard.
I therefore feel, as a large number of my electors, that the Canadian flag is the symbol par excellence of our Canadian identity.

I therefore ask myself why we should adopt the Union Jack to stand beside our own flag. Even though it does symbolize our membership in the Commonwealth, it is not the responsibility of Canada alone to determine which flag should be used to signify association with the Commonwealth, but a decision which should be taken together with all other member nations of the Commonwealth.

Of course, we have no suggestion whatsoever to Commonwealth countries wishing to use the Union Jack as their own flag. Anyway, I sincerely believe we can show our participation in the British Commonwealth by using our own flag, because it adequately reflects our cultural identity.
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, I oppose for these reasons the Royal Union flag being present alongside the national flag in the Senate and House of Commons.
February 2, 1979



The hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Daudlin) mentioned that those men and women who fought in the first and second world wars did, indeed, use as their flag the Union Jack. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs i represented Canada at Vimy last November 11 and was taken on a tour of the cemeteries where our Canadian brothers and sisters of another time lay buried. Engraved on their headstones in a circle was the maple leaf, the same maple leaf which we have on our flag. It took 98 years before we could call this flag our own and before we could fly it on this building. As a fifth generation Canadian, I make no apology for saying that no other flag should stand beside ours. This flag was bought and paid for by all the other Canadians which make up this great country, and, as the hon. member for Kent-Essex has said, we would be taking a step backward if we did not proclaim once and for all that this is the flag of Canada and of all Canadians. It is my flag and I am very proud of it.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the debate that has taken place and to all the members who have made a contribution. It is their right in private members' hour to express their opinions. I will try not to use up all of the time so that my friend on the other side can express his opinion as well. I disagree with the hon. member for Kent Essex (Mr. Daudlin) but only on two matters, as he gave an admirable recount of the history of the time. I disagree with him that Bill C-60 did not appear, to a large number of people in the community, to do something in respect of the monarchy. In my opinion that was evident by the reaction in the community. People can think for themselves, they do not need members of parliament to tell them how to think in that sense.
I do not know if it was a conscious attempt or not, but at least it was perceived as such and as a result the government quite rightly backed down on what they intended. Right across the country the government said they did not intend that kind of thing, and it was even mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. This was all to the good because it was best for the air to be cleared.
The hon. member for Kent-Essex said that this debate takes us back to the flag debate. It may do so in the minds of some, but it should not. The flag debate was a watershed in the development of national symbols in this country. That flag was accepted by parliament, not without difficulty, but it was accepted. It seems to me that the red maple leaf flag has been generally accepted across Canada as a symbol of the nation. One can ask my children and children of other hon. members who were young at that time what is the Canadian flag. There is no doubt in the world that these children can tell you what flag is the Canadian flag. Indeed there is no doubt at all about what members of parliament feel when they distribute these small lapel pins to school children and others who come to visit this building. They are distributing a replica of the national
Flags of Canada
flag. There is no doubt that we have moved past that period of history and so I disagree with the hon. member for Kent-Essex in that regard.
When I look at Bill C-220 I see two things in the explanatory note. First I see that the Maple Leaf flag was proclaimed as the national flag and it says:
-the Union Jack as the symbol of our connection with the Commonwealth and loyalty to the monarchy.
This is a national parliament and a national chamber. As a private member of this House I think the only flag that should be in the national parliament and in this chamber should be the national flag. But that is not to say there is any movement away from those symbols which are important to me and many Canadians regarding our connection to the monarchy. This is a connection which has now been embraced by the government, according to the proclamations that we have heard.
We look around us and see the mace on the table with a replica of the Crown on it. There is a coat of arms on the chair. On top of the calendar on the table there is a Crown. On the ancient ink-well on the table is a Crown. A great deal of symbolism can be found in this chamber which indicates our affection and loyalty to the Crown.
With respect to the flag which is the national symbol of our country, I do not think it is inappropriate that it stands by itself as a national symbol. Symbols are important to people and that is the reason why I make these remarks. I do not want anyone in this House on either side to think that the Union Jack with all its traditions and with its three crosses is not important to a large number of Canadians and not part of the symbolism of the country.
If one looks at provincial flags, for example, the provincial flag of Newfoundland, the newest partner in confederation, he will see it happens to be the Union Jack. I am sure if one would ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson), a senior member of parliament in that area, how he feels about that flag he will find that he feels a sense of affection and identifies that flag with his lovely province. One can see the Union Jack on the Ontario provincial flag. I think that is quite appropriate. Indeed, the Union Jack appears in the fly of another provincial flag. I am sure the government leader in the Senate and the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mrs. Campagnolo) would be distressed if one ever said to them that the Union Jack contained in their British Columbia provincial flag was not important to them. It is an important symbol to many people. It is an important symbol to me, just as I am sure that symbol in those flags is important to others in this chamber who come from various provinces.
I do not believe this bill moves in the right direction. I know what the hon. member has in mind. I think there is a place for display within this building for the flags and the symbols which are important for the men and women who come to this building to serve in the House of Commons and the Senate from all provinces and from our two territories of this country. It would be appropriate if all members of parliament during the course of this debate gave some thought to a place within
80047-40'/2

February 2, 1979
Flags of Canada
this building for the provincial flags which contain symbols that mean something to all of us. Some even including the Union Jack, which certainly means something to a great number of us.
As I came in here just before private members' hour began I took a look down the hall of honour. It is a relatively open and vacant place. It has beautiful architecture, lovely ceilings and columns. We might consider placing the flags of the provinces and territories there. I do not know how many members of parliament have gone into the Peace Tower or have seen anything but the clock. Inside the Peace Tower is a small but beautiful symbolic chapel, the Memorial chapel in which is found the book of rememberance. These books contain the names of veterans, about which the hon. member for St.
Catharines (Mr. Parent) spoke. These are veterans from the Boer War, the First World War, the Second World War and the Korean war. These men and women came from all over Canada. Every race, creed and colour were represented in those wars and are represented in those books. That might be an appropriate place for us to consider as a place where all these symbols could be displayed. I do not want to reopen the debates of 1964-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, February 5, 1979