March 25, 1969

NDP

Edward Richard Schreyer

New Democratic Party

Mr. Schreyer:

I suggest this is an outmoded section in the existing act having to do with occupational training of adults and should be revised.

I also want to suggest to the minister that upon analysing some of the manpower training courses that are being offered, and watching them as they are operated and administered in the field, I find there is an unacceptably high ratio of administrative costs to the total cost of the program. It seems to me that the department would be well advised in helping people to learn jobs in a context that is meaningful, that is on the job. The department should give more emphasis and should promote greater utilization of manpower training funds for on the job or in the plant or on site training programs. There has not been too much success over the past two or three years in promoting this kind of training program.

I want to say also that I agreed with the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir) when he suggested that the present manpower and immigration policy did not seem to take adequately into account the regional discrepancies that exist in this country. The department should be prepared to show a greater regional bias in order to help in the process of reducing regional disparity.

[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)

I am reminded, for example, of the fact that our Canadian immigration policy is administered under regulations which do not take any account of regional differences in demand for labour. Often, one finds the department applying these regulations in a strict way, even though in a particular region such as the prairies there may be a strong demand for labour. People from other countries may have made application to go to the region which is short of labour, but as far as the Department of Manpower and Immigration is concerned one would never know the situation in that particular region was different from that existing in central Canada, for example.

In conclusion may I say this: as I understand the motion proposed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), the suggestion is that the government has failed to provide not only for the adequate development of manpower resources but also for their retention. If the Leader of the Opposition is referring to the so-called brain drain, I suggest that one reason for the existence of this phenomenon is this: the government has demonstrated in recent weeks that it has no coordinated policy in connection with science research.

It is not hard to understand why so many of our young graduates in science and in engineering find it frustrating to remain in this country when there are so many more opportunities available for them in the United States. Until the minister can persuade his colleagues to take a more co-ordinated view of science research policy many more young people will migrate to take up employment elsewhere, finding that Canada does not offer them sufficient opportunities in this regard.

It is not difficult to support the intention of the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition, or, for that matter, the amendment proposed by my hon. friend from Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). Like my hon. friend, I believe that if unemployment is on the increase it stems from the lack of an adequate rate of growth in the economy. The government must involve itself to take up the slack in areas where private enterprise is failing to sustain the desired rate of growth.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY, S.O. 58-NON-CONFIDENCE MOTION-DEVELOPMENT AND RETENTION OF MANPOWER RESOURCES
Permalink
LIB

James Hugh Faulkner (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate have passed Bill C-155, an Act to provide compensation to farmers whose agricultural products are contaminated by pesticide residue, and to provide for appeals from compensation awards, with an amendment to which the concurrence of this house is desired;

Also, a message informing this house that the Senate have passed Bill C-157, an Act to regulate products used for the control of pests and the organic functions of plants and animals, with an amendment to which the concurrence of this house is desired.

It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.

At six o'clock the house took recess.

March 25, 1969

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Permalink

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


GOVERNMENT ORDERS

BUSINESS OF SUPPLY


The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Stanfield and the amendment thereto of Mr. Broadbent.


PC

Philip Bernard Rynard

Progressive Conservative

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on the medical manpower shortage in Canada today. There are two sources of supply for Canadian doctors; first, the Canadian medical schools, and secondly, immigration. Canadian medical schools have been graduating the same number of doctors yearly for about 20 years. There has been an increase in the population of Canada during that time of over four million, roughly 25 per cent. This fact alone means that the shortage of doctors has increased to the same degree.

Immigration registration statistics in Canada show that we were registering up to 600 doctors per year who were trained elsewhere than in Canada. Nearly 100 per cent of these doctors registered were from countries that were financially poorer than Canada. Some of them came from countries themselves desperately short of doctors, such as India and Pakistan where the average is one doctor for every 7,000 people. I wonder about the moral principle involved in taking doctors from countries where they are woefully short and where their earning capacity in one year is much less than the monthly salary here. Some of these countries are poor in resources of nearly all kinds, and I wonder whether this is a good way to extend foreign aid. India and Pakistan are scraping and saving and saving in order to educate one Doctor out of every 7,000 through medical school, which is the pitiful few that they can finance.

The Minister of Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) thought that we were fortunate in having the assistance of 1,200 immigrant doctors every year. I suppose, carrying that idea to its logical conclusion, that we should get all these doctors to emigrate by sending them the money, because they are trained a lot cheaper in India than in Canada. In that event there would be no need to keep

Business of Supply

increasing medical school registration to keep up with the demand for doctors.

I noticed that the minister conveniently omitted from his address any mention of how many of these immigrant doctors were licensed to practise. I observe the minister looking at me now and perhaps he can answer that question for me. He might have it at his fingertips, I do not know. As far as I can see the greatest number in any one year has been under 600, but if the minister has the answer I shall be very glad to hear it.

Again, I am given cause to wonder whether it is morally right to take doctors from underdeveloped countries. According to Dr. John Hinchey, one of our very brilliant surgeons and a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons, Montreal, in an address given to the committee on health of the Senate and House of Commons, we gain 400 to 600 doctors each year from foreign sources. However, the quality of what we gain does not match the quality of what we lose, and for obvious reasons. I think that is an answer to the minister. Dr. Hinchey said we lose, on average, 200 doctors a year to the United States simply because we will not provide in large measure the facilities for research. It is general knowledge that the United States spends 10 times per capita what we spend on research.

The minister may argue that it is not necessary to have a realistic financial commitment on the part of government to medical research in Canada because, as I have heard it argued, with the rapid transmission of information we benefit from new developments and discoveries in the United States. I think it is a little ridiculous to expect a Canadian surgeon to read a paper that describes heart transplants and artificial heart valves, and then to carry out an operation involving such techniques.

Over and over again, Mr. Justice Hall is quoted on medicare. He pointed out that there cannot be and that there must not be any question of conflict or priority between the needs of better education and good health. The costs involved in providing an enlightened program of medical care and supporting the educational needs of Canadians cannot be thought of as a burden. This money is an investment, and the yield is remarkably high. We must not fall down on the provision of medical care to the Canadian people.

It may not be well known that Canada lost one hundred million man days of labour through illness two years ago. This is the latest figure I have. This cost the economy

March 25. 1969

Business of Supply

over $1,630 million. How much would an adequate medical care program have saved our economy by making available medical assistance in the early stages of such illness? I have heard experts state perhaps one half.

A most significant fact is that only 8 per cent of personal incomes go to support education at all levels. If my memory serves me correctly the former minister of finance, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), promised that federal aid to higher education would be increased, and then he walked out on the scholarship program. Now, the government is backing up and cutting the health resources program. Dr. Hinchey said that there is an acute shortage of doctors in Canada at the present time. There are thirteen medical schools in Canada with three more being established. We should be spending $1,200 million each year on research and development in science, engineering, business industry and medicine. We now spend $71 million.

[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)

It is a fact that many people are dying in Canada because of inadequate medical care. You can have all the money in the world but if you are bleeding to death from a stomach ulcer, it is of no avail. You must have a good doctor and proper hospital facilities.

I think we have proved beyond doubt that the minister's statement that the shortage of doctors is a myth is completely wrong. His statement that 1,200 immigrant doctors are coming into Canada every year may be misleading. My information is that only 600 or fewer enter the mainstream of practice, less than one half of those entering the country. It is generally well known that doctors from Great Britain, Ireland, Australia-

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY, S.O. 58-NON-CONFIDENCE MOTION-DEVELOPMENT AND RETENTION OF MANPOWER RESOURCES
Permalink
LIB

Charles L. Caccia

Liberal

Mr. Caccia:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY, S.O. 58-NON-CONFIDENCE MOTION-DEVELOPMENT AND RETENTION OF MANPOWER RESOURCES
Permalink
LIB

Albert Béchard (Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):

The

hon. member for Davenport on a point of order.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY, S.O. 58-NON-CONFIDENCE MOTION-DEVELOPMENT AND RETENTION OF MANPOWER RESOURCES
Permalink
LIB

Charles L. Caccia

Liberal

Mr. Caccia:

Would the hon. member permit a question. Will he indicate what efforts are presently being made by the medical profession and medical societies to recognize the degrees of immigrant doctors.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY, S.O. 58-NON-CONFIDENCE MOTION-DEVELOPMENT AND RETENTION OF MANPOWER RESOURCES
Permalink
PC

Philip Bernard Rynard

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Rynard:

Mr. Speaker, I was about to say that it is generally well known that doctors from Great Britain, Ireland, New Zealand and the British West Indies are accepted as

being well trained. They have little trouble becoming licensed. God knows, we welcome them. Without them, our medical care program would be in complete chaos. I think that answers the hon. member's question.

The government was obviously interested in providing every citizen of our country with the very best medical care possible, to the tune of about $1 billion which was to be spent. Then they turned around and cut the very fund, the health resources fund, that was to provide resources under which required doctors would be trained. According to experts, the fund was cut when it was already 10 per cent deficient. That was penny wise and pound foolish. You cannot buy doctors or make them. You have to educate them. Does the government not know this or does it not care?

Not only did the government cut back on the health resources program but, in spite of our weak position with regard to doctors per capita of our population, it offers no direct leadership in stepping up the training of doctors. No financial assistance has been held out to help the medical schools operate during the summer semester. The government could increase the production of doctors by 50 per cent, at small additional cost. The buildings and equipment are there.

I ask the government, has it approached the provinces with the idea of implementing again the scheme that was carried out so well during the last war? According to the experts, the quality of doctors turned out under the scheme was not lowered at all. In the medical schools across Canada there are roughly 5,000 medical students. Of these, about 800 will be in their final year and working in hospitals if they can afford to do so. That means that about 4,000 students must find jobs, and students are having a difficult time finding employment. A great many of them will not find work. I ask the government, what is so difficult about applying manpower training concepts to these students and paying them for attending medical school during the summer semester. That would certainly be in the category of upgrading training. Interest bearing loans should be provided to students; they should be repayable after graduation and the payments should be deducted from income tax.

I should like to see more applications accepted from students of average ability, as opposed to applications from students scoring high marks. More stress, in my opinion, should be placed on dedication and less on

March 25, 1969

high marks. There should be more stress on character and responsibility, and less stress merely on high marks. It has never been proven to my satisfaction that in the practice of medicine the average student suffers in any way when his performance is compared with that of the better than average student. Admitting average calibre students would qualify many more students to enter the medical field.

The third point I wish to raise about the shortage of medical manpower has to do with the statement the minister made about the uneven distribution of doctors. For example, the Minister of Health and Welfare said that if you had a sore throat in Vancouver three specialists would be waiting for you. It is true that the proportion of specialists to general practitioners in this country has been increasing during the last few years. Thirty years ago the ratio was one specialist to every ten general practitioners. Today, the ratio is one specialist to every general practitioner. We must remember that in the medical field we are now doing highly specialized work not even thought of 20 years ago which needs highly trained doctors to carry it out. Has the minister even thought of consulting with his provincial counterparts? Has he thought of discussing this problem with the universities? Would a doctor be a better specialist if he put in five years as a general practitioner?

The government criticizes but co-operates little in working out our problems. Instead, it cuts back health resources programs which were passed by this house in a supposed effort to help cure the medical manpower shortage. I ask the government to get off its criticizing pedestal. It ought to help us solve some of our medical manpower problems and not help to create them.

[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY, S.O. 58-NON-CONFIDENCE MOTION-DEVELOPMENT AND RETENTION OF MANPOWER RESOURCES
Permalink
RA

René Matte

Ralliement Créditiste

Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):

Mr. Speaker, this motion which blames the government for being unable to develop and to retain manpower resources in Canada deals with one of the most important problems of our country and, more particularly, of Quebec.

This province holds a record that is not enviable in the field of unemployment. It has a manpower surplus while it would now need a maximum of development. Indeed, it is paradoxical to discuss the manpower problem when one knows, of course, that our new country owns natural wealth that is practically undeveloped.

Business of Supply

This is an unhappy situation. However, no really serious step is taken in' order to meet it.

We have been denouncing, for a very long time, a system that leads to such a state of things. If there are people who do understand the problem, it is we, of the Ralliement Creditiste, and like the sponsor of the motion, we regret that the situation is so deplorable.

The manpower centres which I know, those of Quebec and particularly those which serve my area, are almost useless except that they give employment to a few civil servants. This seems to be the only aim of these centres.

When one knows the sometimes detached way in which the manpower counselors welcome the workers in some areas, one might wonder whether they really care to provide with jobs the unemployed or, still, those who do not get any unemployment insurance benefits, which is even worse since they do not receive anything.

I do not blame the civil servants altogether, because it is not they who can create jobs. But I blame them for not reporting unemployment cases or for not putting pressure on senior officials in order to induce them to bring at least partial solutions to this problem.

This leads us to try and determine the cause of unemployment. Of course, it would take too much time to elaborate further on this subject but we can still point out some highlights, namely the employment of student manpower which is still of some significance.

If we consider the tremendous number of students who, as soon as the holidays start, would like to find work so as to make a little money and thus participate in the development of the country, then it is not just a matter of money but also a matter of participation.

It is obvious that no one has any intention of giving work just for the sake of giving work because many people receive money without providing any service or any work in return. We have now come to the point where work is often considered degrading. Work should be upgraded and we should find the best means to give some to everyone, and especially to the young, since the real problems which we face now and which we will have to face within a few years stem from there. We are dealing here with one of the most important problems in our history.

If we cannot instil into our young people the love of work, what are we coming to? If we cannot create a sound emulation as to

March 25, 1369

Business of Supply

work, enterprise and initiative, we are going the wrong way.

It is surely possible to achieve such aims but not the way it is being done at the present time. We do not help concerns to employ young people. Even in the case of those who hold degrees, whenever they enter the labour market, people are afraid to give them work claiming that they have no experience. If they have no experience, how do you want them to learn anything? Thus, people in the constituency of Champlain could have said on June 25 last: "He never was a member of parliament, he has no experience; so let us not elect him."

Therefore, there is something wrong. We are in a vicious circle. One cannot acquire experience if one cannot get work. One has to begin somewhere.

Even through artificial means of creating employment, we shall be able to develop our resources.

But the most serious aspect of it all is that our young people are not learning to love work. Unfortunately, the young are saying to themselves: Since we are not provided with work, with anything, it means that work in itself is not a good thing. We have created such a state of mind whereas we live in an era of progress, at a time where everybody is looking for comfort.

But in spite of the lack of work and income, young people want to make use of the advantages brought about by progress. It follows that they try, in all kinds of ways, more or less honest, to enjoy the same advantages in life.

That could explain, in part, the relaxed morals in our country, the growing number of crimes committed every where. Of course, when there is no work, there is no money. As money is essential to them, they manage to get some anyway.

And so, when we study the employment problem, and particularly that of the students, we touch upon a colossal problem, that of the new generation, that of the training of our youth which we would have wholesome so that our country can benefit from them in the future. We realize that it is high time to find the real causes, and to stop cataloguing opinions according to their source. Little does it matter where the solutions come from; we must pause and study them and, if needs be, forget partisanship to see them objectively, and adopt those that stand a chance of solving the serious problem which the student manpower confronts.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY, S.O. 58-NON-CONFIDENCE MOTION-DEVELOPMENT AND RETENTION OF MANPOWER RESOURCES
Permalink
LIB

Ross Mackenzie Whicher

Liberal

Mr. Ross Whicher (Bruce):

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that while it was not possible for me to listen to all of the speeches this afternoon, I have appreciated those to which I have listened. I feel that a great deal of thought has been put into them, not only by members of my own party but all opposition parties. We all realize as members of this house that the subject of this motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) is one which worries not only we who sit here as elected members of this honourable house, but also all people of Canada.

Perhaps some hon. members have strayed slightly from the subject. As a matter of fact, this is something that I do very often myself. To bring the mood of the house back to what we are discussing, I will restate the motion as it stands:

[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)

That this house regrets the government has not provided for the development and retention of manpower resources in Canada and, in particular, of student manpower resources.

I had the opportunity of listening to the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon, and as a member of the government party I must say quite frankly that he made many good points. He spoke of many things that are worrisome to us as citizens of Canada. On the other hand, I must respectfully say to him that he did not offer any solutions.

All of us know that we as a country really have not provided for the development and retention of our manpower resources but, on the other hand, the solution is not as easy as the placing of this motion on the order paper. The Leader of the Opposition pointed out that there are approximately 250,000 students in Canadian universities, and I point out that this represents the investment of a fantastic amount of money, I know that the government of Ontario alone this year is spending over $1 billion of taxpayers' money on the education of children in primary and secondary schools, and this does not take into account universities.

Education is a fantastic expense. It is an investment not only in the present but in the future. One thing that has annoyed me is that in spite of this huge investment by the people of Canada in our young people, once these young people finish their education and get a certificate, many of them pack up and leave for what in their opinion are greener fields. May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that one third of all the doctors who graduated in

March 25, 1969

Canada last year did not practise for one single day in this country, but left immediately for the United States where they could secure better returns for their services. I do not think this is fair.

I am not going to pick solely on the medical profession. I am also talking about engineers, dentists, architects and lawyers, all the people in what we call the professional class. We have a fantastic investment in these people.

A young man or a young lady leaving high school today, and deciding to buy a shoe store, a dairy, a bakery, a grocery store, or whatever it may be, must have the necessary money or must borrow it from somebody else. If they borrow the money, it must be paid back. One of the great segments of our society is the agricultural industry. Many young farmers must buy their way into it. Perhaps they take over family farms. If they do not have the money themselves, they must get it from the Farm Credit Corporation, private mortgage companies or banks. They borrow money in order to buy a farm, cattle, equipment and all the things necessary for farming. And sooner or later, they have to pay back that money.

I ask where is there a segment of our population that gets things more easily in the financial sense than those people who go through primary school, as all of us did, and through secondary school, completely at the cost of the state, then go on to university? Many of us did not reach university but quite a number did. This year there will be 250,000 students attending university, and two thirds of the cost of university education will be borne by the state, whether it be the province of Ontario, Quebec, or any of the other provinces. A student's father pays the other one third of the cost if the student does not get a scholarship.

In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, governments over the years have not provided for the development and retention of manpower resources in Canada. I ask, does a student who gets free primary schooling, free high school schooling, and has two thirds of his university education paid for, have a responsibility to Canada? Has he a responsibility not only to his parents but to the other people in Canada who paid the taxes that paid for his education? I say he has. The young man or young lady who gets a qualifying certificate, be he or she a dentist, a lawyer, a doctor or an architect, has really got it made in what we

Business of Supply

call the western world. I say that many thousands of students who graduate from our universities have an obligation to pay back something to Canada.

Do we need these young men and women whom we have educated with our money? When I talk about "our money", I am not talking about the money of the average member of parliament who sits in this chamber. I am talking about our older citizens who have worked hard throughout their lives, who have raised their families and who are now living in retirement. Unfortunately, many of these people do not have the financial resources that we would wish them to have, yet they are still striving to pay their way and to help build up the society that we want in Canada.

I have pointed out that one third of the medical doctors who graduated from Canadian universities last year left this country. I do not want to take anything away from them. They worked hard in order to get their degrees, but they left this country without paying back in services or in taxes one nickel of the huge sum of money that we invested in them. Do we need these young doctors? Ask any member of this house who comes from a rural area. If there is an exception I am willing to apologize, but I do know that in the rural areas of Ontario there is a shocking lack of medical doctors.

[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)

Do we need dentists in Canada? I have been told, even by dentists themselves, that tomorrow morning the dental profession could place 5,000 new dentists in positions across Canada without hurting economically one single presently practising dentist. We would not be taking one nickel away from any other dentist. We need these people. Do they have an obligation to us? I say they do. Now, I shall come to the crux of the situation. We often talk about such things as democracy, freedom of speech and freedom of everything else here in Canada. Particularly, we discuss these things in the House of Commons. But unfortunately sometimes it is necessary to give up a little bit of freedom for the over-all good. If a young farmer is to buy a farm or a young businessman is to buy a dairy or a bakery, he must pay back the amount of money he borrrows in order to buy the business. So, I say that our students who graduate from our universities also have something to pay back to the taxpayers of Canada. I say they have an obligation to remain here to give us not only their services for which we are crying in rural Canada but

March 25, 1969

Business of Supply

also to pay back some of the tax money we have invested in them. If we were to ask the Minister of Finance or any treasurer of any province across Canada, we would be told that they, too, are crying for money.

Who earns the money in this country unless it is the professional men who have graduated from our universities? Is there any reason they should not try to pay back in the form of taxes some of the money the taxpayers and citizens have invested in them? One of the hon. members who spoke this afternoon mentioned the fact that perhaps something is owing, but he did not know what to do about it. He did not have any solution. I understand that if a young man in the armed forces of Canada today has passed what at the moment in Ontario we call grade 13, he can go to university at the expense of the Department of National Defence. However, there is one thing he must do before he can get this education. He must sign a paper stating that he will remain in the armed forces for a period of 5 years. Most sincerely, I ask this question. If the people in the armed forces who receive university training must sign a document stating they will remain in the same forces for a period of "X" number of years, why should we not ask those who are attending university to become doctors, dentists, architects, lawyers or whatever the profession may be to sign a paper stating they will remain in Canada for a certain period?

I know there will be some people who may be surprised that a Liberal member would say something like this. I want to say that I never have been more serious in my life. Not only do I feel that this is a good idea, I consider that in Canada it is an absolute necessity. For the past few months we have been talking about the surplus of fish on the east coast and the west coast. We have talked about the surplus of wheat in the West. Tonight, at the Chateau Laurier, those attending the agricultural congress are talking about the surplus of turkeys, the surplus of potatoes and the surplus of food generally wherever it may be. We fail to appreciate, however, that in the long run what we need in Canada is more people. Our neighbour to the south, whose population is ten times ours, probably grows about twice as much wheat and consumes about 80 per cent of it. Here, in Canada, where we have millions of bushels of wheat we consume only about 15 per cent of it and must export the remainder. Surely, we

[Mr. Whicher.l

must appreciate the fact that the way to overcome this problem is to have more people here in Canada.

There is no market in the world like a home market. This has been proven by our neighbour to the south. I am one of those who would advocate that we bring in many people from other parts of the world. But with all due respect to my friends who come from other continents, I say there is no citizen in Canada who is a better citizen than that person who has been born and bred right here and who has been educated in our way of life; yet we are letting many of them get away. We need these people. We need the doctors and the dentists much more than we need their taxes. After what I have said, there might be some among my friends in the opposition parties who might ask how I could vote against such a resolution as this which has been introduced sincerely I am sure by the Leader of the Opposition. My answer is that I do not believe that any solution has been given by the opposition. I am willing to listen. I know how serious a problem this is. I also know how serious a problem it is to the Minister concerned, and how serious it has been for previous ministers and governments. But what are we going to do about it? Are we willing to give away a little of our liberty?

Are we willing to take away a little liberty from our sons and daughters and say to them that if Canada educates them they have an obligation to remain here for a certain period, not only because of the tax dollars we have invested in them but also because their services are needed across this country? Members who come from Vancouver, Montreal or Toronto probably represent areas which do not need more doctors or dentists. However, in rural Canada people must travel many miles in order to obtain these services which others take for granted. This is the reason I say the government should sit down and consult with the provinces concerned in order to work out a plan to enable us to partake of the services of these people who have received the precious asset of education.

I have nothing else to add to this debate, Mr. Speaker. I believe it was the Leader of the Opposition who said some heads should be knocked together. Certainly, they should be. When we remember how sparsely populated this country is, we should realize that whether it is fifty years from now or 100 years from now, the people in countries like China which has a population of 750 million, Japan which has a population of about 100

March 25, 1969

million and India which has a population of about 450 million, will break out of their shirts and trousers to come here.

If we do not do something about the situation, this is what will happen. My suggestion is that we keep some of our boys and girls right here. If ever a country needed these people it is this country.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY, S.O. 58-NON-CONFIDENCE MOTION-DEVELOPMENT AND RETENTION OF MANPOWER RESOURCES
Permalink
LIB

Albert Béchard (Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):

The

hon. member for Red Deer.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY, S.O. 58-NON-CONFIDENCE MOTION-DEVELOPMENT AND RETENTION OF MANPOWER RESOURCES
Permalink
PC

Robert Norman Thompson

Progressive Conservative

Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):

Mr. Speaker, first I should like to commend the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher)-

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY, S.O. 58-NON-CONFIDENCE MOTION-DEVELOPMENT AND RETENTION OF MANPOWER RESOURCES
Permalink
LIB

Eugene Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries)

Liberal

Mr. E. F. Whelan (Essex):

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member, but I wonder whether I might have permission to direct a question to the hon. member who just finished speaking.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY, S.O. 58-NON-CONFIDENCE MOTION-DEVELOPMENT AND RETENTION OF MANPOWER RESOURCES
Permalink
LIB

Albert Béchard (Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):

Order. The hon. member's time has expired, unless there is unanimous consent.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY, S.O. 58-NON-CONFIDENCE MOTION-DEVELOPMENT AND RETENTION OF MANPOWER RESOURCES
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Agreed.

[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY, S.O. 58-NON-CONFIDENCE MOTION-DEVELOPMENT AND RETENTION OF MANPOWER RESOURCES
Permalink
LIB

Eugene Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries)

Liberal

Mr. Whelan:

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask the hon. member a question. I believe I heard him correctly. I thought he said you had to be bom in Canada to be the best class of citizen in the country. Is that what the hon. member said?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY, S.O. 58-NON-CONFIDENCE MOTION-DEVELOPMENT AND RETENTION OF MANPOWER RESOURCES
Permalink
PC

Robert Muir

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):

That

was Pickersgill.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY, S.O. 58-NON-CONFIDENCE MOTION-DEVELOPMENT AND RETENTION OF MANPOWER RESOURCES
Permalink

March 25, 1969