1972-06-22

[Stage Direction]
. Fourth report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs-Mr. Kaplan.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, in 1967 Parliament passed the Immigration Appeal Board Act and eliminated elements of the Immigration Act legislated 14 years earlier. At the same time as this new legislation came into force, new immigration regulations were passed by Order in Council. These regulations for the first time allowed visitors to Canada to apply for landed immigrant status while in our country. At the same time, we reaffirmed the advantages such as extra credits for prearranged employment and better preparation for those who applied while still in their home countries, the traditional method of immigrating to a new homeland.
The 1967 legislation refined appeal procedures and included for the first time the right of sponsoring Canadian relatives to appeal on behalf of people still in their home countries. The regulations provided objective selection criteria, based on education, skill, occupational demand, language capability, age and other factors. They eliminated what may have been unintentional discrimination under the earlier systems. A person's race, colour, creed or sex is not a factor in selection as an immigrant.
The 1967 regulations were based on recognition of the fact that an open immigration policy goes hand in hand with the economic and cultural growth of our country. Our present problem in immigration is not the calibre of the thousands of persons applying in Canada to become landed immigrants. It is rather the unexpected volume of desirable and worthy persons from many countries who are caught up in what is, in fact, a very thorough and equitable appeals system. It is interesting to note that in 1971 there were 122,000 immigrants to Canada, of whom nearly 40,000 were landed while here as visitors.
Five years ago no one could have forecast the tremendous impact jet-age world travel would have on immigration. More than 38 million persons visit Canada each year and thousands of these visitors want to settle here permanently after becoming enamoured with this land.
Whatever changes may be desirable in the Immigration Act, and these are being considered with care, are not relevant to solving the problems of today. Those problems must be met by coping with the situation we have. We have not had the administrative flexibility to clear, one way or another, the great number of cases requiring decision. In human decency and fairness, decisions must be given and given soon. Legislative changes are for the future. They can wait.
The result of our inability to cope with the large numbers who could not immediately be granted landed immigrant status has been a large build-up in backlogs at two levels of procedure, that is, in the immigration inquiry system and at the Immigration Appeal Board. Unintentionally, this has created hardship for many people anxious to become Canadians. As an example, abnormally long delays in determining the final status of immigrants have caused financial hardship forcing some immigrants to take employment without authorization. It is our objective to eliminate these delays so that this situation will not arise in the future. While I intend to remove the immediate hardships and eliminate delays, I do not intend to change the basic policy under which persons coming to Canada are prohibited from taking employment without permission.
I want to say that the program we are instituting now is not in the category of a general amnesty such as we have had in former years. Rather, the plan calls for action on two fronts: first, to streamline and improve current procedures to prevent a further build-up of the backlog of cases and, second, to eliminate this backlog of some 13,500 applications now awaiting hearings by special inquiry officers who determine in the presence of the applicant and his counsel whether an applicant should be landed or ordered deported.
The department's field strength is being increased by 260 persons so that backlog cases can be reviewed and be assessed and delays in the handling of current applications can be drastically reduced.
The prospective immigrant's performance in Canada will be reviewed, taking into account how he has been able to adjust to Canadian life while awaiting his departmental hearing. Consideration will be given to his financial stability, trade and language training, participation in community activities and his employment potential.
We hope this will result in the granting of landed status to some 50 per cent of the applicants whose cases have

June 22, 1972
Immigration Regulations
been caught up in the backlog. Those not immediately accepted as landed immigrants will have their departmental hearings continued with full protection of their right of appeal to the independent Immigration Appeal Board.
Each applicant in the backlog will be notified that the department is undertaking a review of his case. He will be informed of the factors on which this review will be based and invited to provide any new information to show that he has in fact successfully established himself in Canada. He will also be asked to produce letters of recommendation from Canadian citizens or other permanent residents of Canada. For purpose of this review, we will be prepared to seek relief by Order in Council from the application of the relevant immigration regulations for those persons who have established themselves successfully in Canada.
In regard to new applications, our objective is that any future applicants for landed immigrant status from within Canada will be assessed within one month, and if a further hearing is necessary it will be held without delay.
It is expected that this rate of processing new applications can be achieved by January 1, 1973. No additions will be made to the existing backlog after that date. A target date of April 1, 1974 has been set to eliminate the remaining departmental inquiry backlog.
Although they cannot be resolved directly by any administrative measures, the department will also reexamine its files on some 10,000 cases now before the Immigration Appeal Board. Since I am a party to all appeals I shall, through my representatives, make submissions and arguments for favourable consideration wherever possible. It must, however, be emphasized that the board as an independent tribunal makes its own decisions on the basis of the law and the evidence adduced in each individual case.


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the minister for his courtesy in sending a copy of his statement to me during the lunch hour. This will enable me, I hope, to make a few charitable observations about his initiative in respect of immigration.
I should like to make it clear at the outset that this initiative is most welcome and that the Official Opposition is very happy and relieved for the sake of all those who will benefit from the minister's intention to proceed by way of Order in Council in order to provide amnesty for half or 50 per cent of visitors seeking landed immigrant status. This measure was inevitable and long overdue. We are also glad to see that the number of immigration officers will be increased by 260, which should help greatly in administration. But we are not convinced that the problem is by any means solved. We feel that this is only a stopgap measure that will itself create more problems and more inequities.
We also believe that the statement of the minister this afternoon has sounded the death-knell of the government's point system policy. There remains no equity but only hardship for those who apply from abroad, in the approved manner, to become landed immigrants in Canada. In addition, in our opinion this amnesty will encourage a flood of visitor applications for landed status

in Canada and discourage homeland applications, which are the preferred type.
This problem is not just one of today. It is sad that it took so long, and particularly that it took the suicide of a distraught woman, to bring the problem to the minister's attention and force him to act. The problem has been building up since 1967 when amendments were made to the act. It reached crisis proportions some time ago. In fact, the previous minister of immigration promised amendments to the act but he failed to produce any.
At the end of October, 1971, there were 7,443 cases before the Immigration Appeal Board. Today the total has reached the 10,000 mark. It took that magic number of
10,000	to waken the minister and the government to the situation.
The minister says that legislative changes are for the future and can wait. This has been the constant theme song of each of the Trudeau government ministers. The Canadian people will wait forever if they wait for the Trudeau government to perform.
The minister's measures, if they accomplish his objectives, will remove only half of the present backlog of 13,500 applications. Hearings will continue for the others. Therefore they only go half way to meet the problem of clearing the backlog.
The minister is not going to change the visitor entry policy. Until next January 1 new visitor applications will apparently be added to the existing backlog. Therefore between now and then I visualize a flood of visitor entries, urged on by travel agencies and others, seeking to beat the deadline and be accepted under the new easy entry provisions.
What happens to those already under deportation orders? Will there be a review of their cases as well? What is going to be done about work permits for tourists who seek permanent entry into Canada?
Canada needs a new immigration policy because the government's policy and its administration have failed to meet today's needs. This whole subject, I suggest, should be put before the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration forthwith.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, we welcome the minister's statement. The situation had become intolerable. In fact, I described it in the House a few weeks ago as "a horrendous mess". We cannot blame the present minister for it as it is the accumulation of neglect over the years. In throne speech after throne speech new immigration legislation has been promised but has not been forthcoming. The immigration portfolio has been in the hands of ministers such as the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) who was preoccupied with other important offices such as minister of manpower and minister in charge of the Wheat Board.
All interested parties have become familiar with the lengthy delays in special inquiry hearings on deportation cases, particularly in metropolitan centres such as Toronto and Montreal. Owing to a further backlog in the immigration appeals system, it has been estimated that it takes
June 22, 1972

up to eight years to complete the proceedings authorized by law. During part of this period, that is to say, up to the time of an appeal to the Immigration Appeal Board, work permits have been refused. As the minister has indicated, this has had the effect of forcing those who did not have funds to work surreptitiously and to seek to defy the law in order to exist. It no doubt contributed to the sense of desperation which led to the tragic case of the Polish immigrant who committed suicide.
I am glad that in order to resolve this problem the minister has not relied on greater restrictions but, on the contrary, has indicated that greater administrative flexibility is to be exercised. We do not desire to restrict visitors to this country and we do not desire to prevent suitable visitors from applying for and receiving permission to stay in this country. I am quite sure that this so-called amnesty-the minister disclaims that title but it is something of that nature-will not be used to permit the admission to Canada of persons with criminal records and things of that sort.
As the regulations now stand they permit immigration officials to approve the admission of an independent applicant who does not meet the norms set out in the point system if they are of the opinion that there are good reasons why these norms do not reflect the applicant's chance of establishing himself successfully in Canada. Unfortunately, these provisions do not seem to have been used extensively in the past. Most immigration officers seem to have ignored them and relied exclusively on the point system. The point system itself requires review; it has been one of the causes of trouble. One thing that the minister can do is to make sure that his officials pay attention to the regulations.
As much as 15 points out of a total of 50 are allotted to the purely subjective judgment of the examining officer as to the personal qualifications of the applicant. The points to be allowed for occupational demand have been kept a tight secret so that the applicant does not and cannot know the basis on which he is assessed. This practice makes a farce of many special inquiries, and even appeals to the Immigration Appeal Board, because the applicant cannot know the real nature of the case against him.
Another point that needs to be reviewed is the practice of examining officers not to reveal the points they have allotted until the date of the inquiry is fixed. This has the result that applicants and their advisers cannot assess whether they will have a reasonable chance on appeal because they do not know how many points were allotted. This has led to many people entering appeals on pure speculation when the cases were hopeless or might have been seen to be hopeless if the full facts had been disclosed.
Although the minister is to be commended for the amendments and the new policy he has announced, it is only a start. The Immigration Act and the Immigration Appeal Board Act both need revision.
As far as the Immigration Act is concerned, in 1966, six years ago, the government, in the white paper on immigration by the then minister of manpower and immigration who is now Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand), proposed detailed changes in the act
Immigration Regulations
but nothing has been done. The Immigration Act still contains vague and antiquated provisions. It confers the right to make regulations prohibiting or limiting the admission of persons by reason of nationality, citizenship, ethnic group, occupation class or geographical area of origin, peculiar customs, habits and modes of life,- methods of holding property, and so forth.
The white paper in 1966 urged that the provisions in regard to the admission of refugees be codified and made part of the law. This has not been done and cases have been dealt with on a sort of ad hoc basis.
It seems to me that the Immigration Appeal Board Act should be reviewed. It does not seem to me that exclusive jurisdiction to deal with humanitarian and compassionate grounds for not executing deportation orders should be in the hands of the board which is a court of law. Many of these cases could be dealt with far more expeditiously and just as satisfactorily by the minister or his officials. Greater power should be given to the minister and his officials to act on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. I am coming to a conclusion, Mr. Speaker.
There is no doubt that where there is large-scale unemployment, there is bound to arise a public demand for more and more restrictive measures with respect to immigration. In our view, this is not the answer. It is not the immigrants who are to blame for large-scale unemployment and it is not the immigrants who create unemployment. The net effect of immigration in Canada has been not only a great enrichment of the quality of Canadian life but also a larger measure of prosperity and expansion than we could possibly have achieved without immigration-happily, now, from many different quarters of the world.
The temptation of restriction has been avoided, and for this we are grateful. Immigration is not only an economic matter-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must remind the hon. member who has the floor and other hon. members of the restriction imposed by the Standing Order which allows only brief comments on ministerial statements. It seems to me the hon. member is now making a general statement which goes some distance beyond the confines of the statement the minister made, and I hope he will find it possible to bring it to a close.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I had just about come to the last sentence of my remarks. As I said, the temptation of restriction has been avoided by the minister, and we are grateful to him for that. In our view, immigration is not only an economic matter but one which involves the lives of people. There is no reason why Canada cannot be just and generous.


Mr. Romuald Rodrigue (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I wish to thank the minister for sending us the French version of his statement before the beginning of the sitting, and we are much grateful to him for that.
The minister has announced the elimination of some features of the Immigration Act, enacted 14 years ago. That modification of the act will eliminate some delays and improve administrative efficiency.

June 22, 1972
Business of the House
In his statement, the minister summed up the procedures previously in effect. Once more, one can realize that bureaucracy is almighty and that it needs at times to be put to reason.
I commend the minister who had the strength to repeal some outdated sections of the act and I invite him to continue along those lines in other fields which come under his jurisdiction.
We agree on the modifications announced by the minister, but I wish to remind him that Canada must not make the regulations and the law less efficient, so that the economic expansion of this country not be jeopardized by the entrance of too many immigrants.
We must continue to make a sound selection of individuals who have decided to live in Canada, especially this year when the unemployment rate is rather high.
I therefore urge the minister to be careful when amending the legislation and I ask him to continue to seek the advice of the provinces as partners, since immigration under the constitution comes under the provincial and federal authorities.
I hope that the minister will take those recommendations into consideration when the legislation is amended.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskotming):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under Standing Order 43 that is of national and obvious importance. As the time limit makes it mandatory that the total estimates for 1972-73 amounting to $11 billion shall be voted later this day and as many of them have not even been cursorily examined, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather):
That the subject of handling of our future estimates be immediately referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, to provide for legislative control over our tax expenditures.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's motion requires unanimous consent. Is there consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent and the motion cannot be put.
(Mr. Rodrigue.]



TRANSPORT


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. It is of great and pressing concern to a large number of railway workers and other employees in various parts of Canada. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose):
That the matter of the proposed building of the Kootenay and Elk Railway in the East Kootenay area to link up with the Burlington Northern Railway at the U.S. Border for the transport of export coal to the Pacific coast via the Burlington Northern Railway be sent to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications for investigation and report as to the effect it will have on employment, on the Canadian economy in general, and on the possible export of other commodities by similar spur lines in other parts of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion can only be put with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion therefore cannot be put.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Allan ]. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask the House if it will give unanimous consent, in accordance with consultations, to move the following motion:
That the annual and supplementary reports of the Canadian Wheat Board for the years 1968-69 and 1969-70 and the annual report for the year 1970-71 be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
I understand that the committee is anxious to have this reference. If it is agreed that there will be no debate, we can call it now, with your approval, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. McKinley:: Mr. Speaker, although this motion is debatable, we have agreed to have it passed without debate provided the other parties do the same.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we agree.
June 22, 1972


Mr. Caouette:: We agree, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. La Salle:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the announced Order in Council amnesty or partial amnesty intended to clear the backlog of visitor applicants for landed immigrant status, is it the intention of the government that the large number of those who have applied from abroad in the approved manner but who have been refused for insufficient points will be given such status as easily as those benefiting from the amnesty?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, this is very true in the case of all applicants from out of the country who were sponsored by people within the country. It is the purpose always to maintain the incentive and the advantage of making an application from outside Canada rather than within Canada.



SPECIAL MEASURES TO ELIMINATE BACKLOG-INTENTION RESPECTING NEW APPLICANTS

Sylvester Perry Ryan: As there is still a large number who apparently will not have the benefit and as there will likely be a flood of visitors who will seek to enter Canada in order to take advantage of the announced amnesty, will the present point system be continued, will the lower standards apply to them as well, or how does the government intend to handle the situation?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the special provisions that I have announced refer only to those cases in what we call the backlog. New people coming into Canada in the manner which the hon. member described will be subject to the usual examination and the usual point system. The dilemma, as is obvious from the members remarks, is that we cannot have it both ways. We either welcome immigrants or we do not. We either eliminate the backlog or we let it continue. I am not quite sure what the hon. member is in favour of.
Inquiries of the Ministry INQUIRY AS TO AMENDMENT OF ACT


Sylvester Perry Ryan: When will the minister introduce the government's long-promised amendments to the Immigration Act?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I said that at the earliest opportunity this fall I intend to bring forward changes in the Immigration Act but that in the interval everything should be done to alleviate the hardships that are obviously caused by the fact there are some people who have been waiting four years for a decision. These measures are designed to deal with those cases, and I would imagine would normally carry the approval of the hon. member.



SPECIAL MEASURES TO ELIMINATE BACKLOG-REQUEST THAT OFFICIALS CONSIDER OTHER PROVISIONS IN ADDITION TO POINT SYSTEM

Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Will the minister specifically call the attention of the officers who are conducting the review to the provisions in the regulations that entitle them to go beyond or overlook the strict point system when it looks as though persons could establish themselves successfully in Canada?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member has a second to look at the document I think he will see that that is precisely on what it is based.



SPECIAL MEASURES TO ELIMINATE BACKLOG-INQUIRY AS TO ABOLISHING OF APPEAL BOARD

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In light of this amnesty, is it now the intention of the government to abolish the Immigration Appeal Board as it will not have any work to do?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is again referring to this as an amnesty. If it was the intention of the government-


An hon. Member:: It is amnesty.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I made it very clear that it was not an amnesty. If it were an amnesty, we would simply give permission to all 10,000 cases. The point is that each and every one of the people in the backlog will be assessed according to a different set of criteria. The point system is an assessment of the person's qualities. The present method will take into consideration the applicant's real qualities based on the fact that some of these people have been here two, three or four years. Therefore we can assess them on their performance during that period of time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I see five or six members seeking to ask supplementaries. I think that early in the question period I should remind hon. members that today I will attempt to see members who did not have a chance to ask their questions yesterday.
3376

June 22, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I asked a serious question, whether the minister was going to abolish the Immigration Appeal Board. I asked him to answer yes or no. The minister did not answer. This is just a waste of time. I wish to put that question to him.



SUGGESTED MORE EQUAL DEPLOYMENT OF OFFICERS OVERSEAS-FACILITATING OF ENTRY OF DOMESTICS

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In light of the fact that much of the problem results from the unequal deployment of immigration officers overseas, thereby reducing the chances of applicants to have their applications heard readily and causing them to use the quick method, is it the intentioon of the minister to bring about a more equal distribution throughout the world in order that applicants will have an earlier opportunity rather than having to take this second method?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, there is a current review of the deployment of immigration officers around the world at various points, but I would have to question whether it would be quicker to apply from within the country when some of our cases are four years old.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: One last supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to remind hon. members again that we are running into difficulty right at the start of the question period.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I have another matter of concern. Is the minister aware of the legitimate need for domestics in this country and is he in fact attempting to make the regulations or the Immigration Act much easier for entrance by persons of this calibre?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the role of domestics is certainly an occupational skill. I will personally make sure that it is being properly assessed by immigration officials who are processing applications from visitors within the country or would-be immigrants out of the country.


Mr. Len Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Does the minister agree that if the Indians had had a better immigration policy some years ago we would perhaps not be having all of these difficulties today?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre for a last supplementary on this subject and return to it later during the question period.



REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF DEPORTATION ORDERS WHERE PERSON'S LIFE MAY BE IN DANGER

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration a 
question without being argumentative or citing examples. In view of previous decisions of the Immigration Appeal Board to issue deportation orders in cases where the life or safety of the persons to be deported may be in danger, would the minister consider asking the board, if he has not already done so, to review cases of this kind? He will be as familiar as I am or more so, with two or three of them.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am not a lawyer, but I am very respectful of courts of law or other organizations or boards having the same status. The Immigration Appeal Board is an independent body set up by law so as to reduce to a minimum political interference and patronage. I respect the wishes of the board and I never make recommendations which would have the effect of questioning the board's decisions.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration on another subject. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the plight of some 2,000 employees laid off by Northern Electric and, in particular, to the plight of those who have been forced to go on welfare because their severance and other pay had to be used to pay off loans from the credit union? If his attention has been drawn to these circumstances and to the fact that unemployment insurance benefits will not be available to them for months, is he contemplating taking any action?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am aware of the unemployment policy, or perhaps I should say the employment policy, of Northern Electric. I was concerned to the extent that I personally visited the president of the company two weeks ago and encouraged him to issue a statement which he will be making in a few days jointly with the Minister of Manpower setting out the manpower programs of which Northern Electric will be taking advantage for its own future efficiency and for the benefit of the employees through retraining. He will also indicate Northern's future policy of remaining in Quebec.
As far as unemployment insurance and severance pay are concerned, the situation is not quite as the hon. gentleman describes it. These people owed the credit union $2,000 when they left Northern Electric. The decision to take the $2,000 back was strictly one made by the credit union, and one of the conditions-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


David Lewis: That is exactly what I stated. The credit union demanded repayment. I would ask the minister this: In view of the fact that the definition of earnings is made by regulation, and in view of the fact that the requirement that severance and other pay be exhausted
June 22, 1972

before unemployment insurance benefits become available is a requirement which results from a definition contained in the regulations and, further, in view of the fact that these people-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me we are entering upon a lengthy debate between the hon. member and the minister. The hon. member is asking a rather lengthy question. I realize that the minister's earlier reply was also very lengthy, but I would hope that both hon. members would try to be brief.


David Lewis: It may have been lengthy, but I was setting out the line of my question. In view of the fact that this situation has been produced by the nature of the regulation, and that these people are on welfare because of the demand of the credit union, would the minister not agree to amend the regulations, which does not require any action by Parliament, so that these unfortunate Canadians will not have to be welfare recipients after they have paid into the unemployment insurance fund?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. gentleman is extremely persuasive. I wish, perhaps, that I were as persuasive as he is. I have been reviewing these regulations for some time.


David Lewis: In view of the fact that the minister now has before him living examples of the unfortunate and distressing results of the present regulations, will he undertake to stop reviewing and start amending them?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



LABOUR RELATIONS


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the hon. Minister of Labour.
After two or three days of discussion with the Maritime Employers Association and the longshoremen's union, could the minister indicate if the parties reached an agreement following last night's meeting so as to resume operations in St. Lawrence harbours?


Hon. Martin P. O'Connell (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, after the meeting last night I did receive this morning from the Maritime Employers Association confirmation by wire that they are proceeding to arbitration. They are referring the alleged violations of the agreement to arbitration.



QUEBEC-LONGSHOREMEN'S STRIKE-POSITION OF UNION RESPECTING ARBITRATION-ALLEGED ACCUSATION OF QUEBEC MINISTER OF LABOUR

David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Do the union leaders also accept arbitration? Moreover, can the minister indicate if he has discussed with the Minister of Labour of the province of Quebec who last night accused his federal counterpart on television of not having done anything to solve the conflict?


Mr. O'Connell:: As for the first question, I expect the International Longshoremen's Association and the men to honour their obligation under their agreement and under the law to participate in the arbitration proceedings. As to the second question, I have no comment to make.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity, while I am on my feet, to make an announcement on a matter which is of interest to all hon. members? Early this morning an agreement in principle was reached between the CBC and NABET for settlement of the dispute between them. The agreement is subject to ratification.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We might return to the previous matter.

I shall recognize the hon. member for Temiscamingue on a supplementary, and then the hon. member for Sainte-Marie, also on a supplementary.



LABOUR RELATIONS


David Réal Caouette: I have a last supplementary, Mr. Speaker, directed this time to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Has the right hon. Prime Minister replied to the Minister of Labour of the province of Quebec who was accusing him last night of giving more consideration to the problems of Ontario than to those of Quebec.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Sainte-Marie is rising on a supplementary.



QUEBEC-LONGSHOREMEN'S STRIKE-ESTABLISHMENT OF INQUIRY COMMISSION-POSITION OF PARTIES

Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the hon. Minister of Labour concerning his statement a few minutes ago.
3378

June 22, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
Is the setting up of a commission of inquiry on activities and situation of harbours the solution he has recommended to the two parties involved in order to arrive at an agreement today?


Abram Ernest Epp: The arbitration procedure takes precedence over a commission of inquiry. I would remind the hon. member that the intention to proceed to a commission of inquiry was contingent upon neither of the parties proceeding to arbitration.



QUEBEC-LONGSHOREMEN'S STRIKE-INQUIRY RESPECTING COMMUNICATION BY PRIME MINISTER WITH QUEBEC PREMIER

Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary to put to the Prime Minister.
Would he inform the House whether he had any telephone conversation or any other communication with the Quebec Premier about the situation in the St. Lawrence ports, either this morning or yesterday?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.



COMBINES


Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It arises out of an earlier question asked by my hon. friend from Battle River and the complaints made by farmers about fertilizer prices. Has the department investigated the high price of fertilizer in Canada compared with United States prices and, if so, will the minister consider making a report to the House?


Mr. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: I believe I said the other day that I would take the representation as notice. We are looking into the matter.


Donald Craig Stewart: Can the minister tell the House whether the federal Department of Agriculture has requested such an investigation?


Robert Knight Andras: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.



INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGED PRICE-FIXING BY PFIZER COMPANY IN SALE OF VORLEX

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs whether there is an investigation under the Combines Investigation Act under way in respect of a charge against the Pfizer Company for price-fixing in the sale of Vorlex, a chemical manufactured by that company which is used in the production of tobacco?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have serious doubts whether that is a supplementary question, but the question will be allowed and the minister may reply and then we will move on to the next question.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I think it is common practice that information of that kind is not placed before the House while an investigation is or apparently is under way.



INDUSTRY


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the recent financial report which indicated that business bankruptcies are taking place at almost twice the rate of just a year ago, is the government in any way redirecting its policy to place at least as much emphasis on maintaining our present industries as on establishing new ones?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, we do a lot in order to maintain and support industries in their progress. We have all kinds of programs in aid to industries with expenditures in the neighbourhood of $150 million, in my department alone.



CORPORATE AFFAIRS


Mr. Kenneth Robinson (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Will he advise whether it is government policy that automobile manufacturers, such as Chrysler Corporation of Canada Limited, are not subject to government inspection and government standards in the production of automobiles?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, automobile safety and standards pertaining thereto are under the jurisdiction of my colleague, the Minister of Transport. The question of quality of work under warranty, for instance, is a jurisdictional matter under the jurisdiction of the provinces. Complaints in respect of quality of the products of automobile manufacturers or anybody else are the subject of communications to my department. We often take up the cudgels on their behalf, but we do not enter directly into inspections of that nature.


William Kenneth Robinson: Mr. Speaker, will the minister ensure Canadian consumers that Chrysler Corporation of Canada Limited will be required to provide a high standard of quality for their automobiles, and will he also
June 22, 1972

ensure that Chrysler Corporation of Canada Limited will provide safeguards, warranties and guarantees in respect of faulty workmanship in production and in repairs so that consumers will not be required to spend exorbitant amounts on repairs that should not be necessary if the company had a proper standard of quality control?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member will agree that this is a representation, and he must assume that it has been noted.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see the members present today sitting opposite us. It is a great pleasure. My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I would ask him whether an invitation has been extended to Her Majesty, the Queen, to be present at the centenary celebration of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police of which she is honorary commissioner? The police and western Canadians would like to know the answer.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker,
I might begin by saying that any time the right hon. member wants to get pleasure from seeing members on this side he just has to come into the House and he will find us here in great numbers.


Mr. Hees:: It is very difficult to get pleasure out of it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I agree with the hon. member that he might not always get pleasure from it, but he can see them here. As to the question, I would be glad to send the right hon. member a copy of my reply which is in Hansard of some weeks ago.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, Machiavellian answers like that are not in keeping with the responsibilities of a Prime Minister. I would ask whether he is refusing to have Her Majesty here because of some of the statements-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Wait a minute. Is he refusing because so many of the right hon. gentleman's supporters voted for the abolition of the monarchy at that Liberal meeting in Montreal two years ago?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member for Fraser Valley West as it really should be his turn to be recognized. I will try to make it up in some way. I recognize the hon. member for Egmont for a supplementary question.
Inquiries of the Ministry CONSUMER AFFAIRS



REPORT THAT CERTAIN UNSAFE CHILDREN'S CAR SEATS STILL BEING SOLD-GOVERNMENT ACTION

['Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that this is argument, not a question.']
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs relating to automobile safety. In view of the action taken by the minister's department under his predecessor a few months ago to remove unsafe car seats for children from the market, and in view of the recent news report that many of these car seats are still being offered for sale and that there is a lack of investigation in regard to the problem, I wonder whether the minister has noted this and whether any action has been taken by his department?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, there has been a series of inspections take place to see whether there was conformity to that regulation which banned the sale of unsafe children's car seats as of June 1, and follow-up action is being taken whenever we discover that such seats are still on the market.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, would the minister indicate whether there is sufficient staff to enforce this regulation effectively, and will he be making a statement to indicate in some detail the nature of these seats that may still be on the market so that consumers who are actively purchasing these items during the summer season may be aware of the dangers involved?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, there has been an attempt made to describe them in various publications issued by my department, in press releases and in speeches across the country. We always wish we could do more. We certainly could use more inspectors, but I do not know what size an army we would really require if that is the only way we could police this.



Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Does the Canadian government plan to provide any kind of naval escort protection to the Greenpeace III, a vessel which is under Canadian registry, skippered by a Canadian, and reported to be in the nuclear test zone on the high seas, in order that this vessel will not be apprehended, harassed or in any other way bothered by the government of France?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, my information is that the Greenpeace is flying under the Peruvian flag, not under the Canadian flag. Some time ago, long before Mr. Metcalfe sent his telegram to the Prime Minister yesterday, we brought to the attention of the French government the probable presence of some Canadians on the Greenpeace

June 22, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
and expressed our concern for their safety. Of course, we cannot prevent any Canadian from travelling on the high seas as he wishes, and if he chooses to go into an area of danger I really do not know what basis in law I would have to prevent him from doing so.


Mark Willson Rose: Since Canada has protested this nuclear test through a note, and in view of the fact that opposition to nuclear testing is within the four corners of Canadian government policy, and since this is a Canadian vessel on the high seas that is threatened, has the minister any explanation for this appalling external affairs timidity that would embarrass the president of a banana republic?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister is rising on a question of privilege.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out to the hon. gentleman that, far from being timid, this government has made very strong protests to the French government against nuclear weapons testing of all kinds.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not privilege; that is an abuse.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will be recognized on a supplementary question, but we are obviously getting into a debate at this point. If the hon. member has a supplementary question he will be recognized for that purpose.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, some members around us have suggested that both the minister and I should be on the Greenpeace.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I should like to proceed with my supplementary question. Since Canada has protested this test through a note, and the minister reiterated that, how can the government in good conscience not protest the conditions surrounding this particular action?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that this is argument, not a question.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.

Would the minister tell the House whether Sherbrooke is going to be designated as a "special area", in view of the large number of very poor adjacent parishes located in the western Sherbrooke area?


Hon. lean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I believe I made a statement in the House last week concerning this matter. I have nothing to add at the moment.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Would the minister have any particular suggestions in order to include parishes adjacent to Sherbrooke in a "special area", either by separating them from Sherbrooke, or by designating areas on a county rather than a region basis?


Mr. Speaker:: I think that this question is more in the form of a representation made by the hon. member, and I believe that he must assume that it has been noted.



INQUIRY RESPECTING DESIGNATION OF NEW SPECIAL AREAS

Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question.
In view of the statement he made two weeks ago, could the hon. minister tell the House whether discussions are now under way with the Quebec government in order to determine new special areas for the province of Quebec and, in such a case, whether there will be an announcement in the House by the end of this month?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we maintain contacts with the government of Quebec for many reasons. We have made 45 agreements with provinces and we are continuing negotiations with them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I remind hon. members once more that the oral question period will be ending in a few minutes and if they ask five or six supplementaries on each question, we shall never finish. However, the Chair recognizes the hon. member for Lotbiniere for a last supplementary on this matter.



DISCUSSION OF DESIGNATION OF SPECIAL AREAS WITH PROVINCES

Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Can the minister indicate whether or not the issue of designated areas is included in the 45 topics which he is discussing with provincial governments?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will simply refer the hon. member to the statement I made about 10 days ago. I think if the hon. member takes the trouble to read Hansard, he will find the answer there.
June 22, 1972



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration of which I have given him notice. Has the minister looked into the case of Maria Dos Anjos of Toronto whose unemployment insurance payments were held up for seven months? If so, is he now proposing to take steps to make sure that the administrative errors which brought about this almost unbelievable delay will not take place in the future?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has serious reservations about the advisability from a procedural standpoint of hon. members referring to this kind of individual case. It seems to me that in such circumstances we could, from day to day, spend all of the question period looking into individual cases involving several departments. Perhaps the minister could reply briefly, but I would not wish to encourage hon. members to bring up individual cases in this way.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, since the minister does not seem to want to answer, I might say on a point of order that this case is the most outstanding of a great many similar cases which have arisen in the past few months. I ask the minister to give some indication whether this kind of mess is going to be cleaned up.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



BRITISH COLUMBIA-ASSISTANCE TO FLOOD VICTIMS- POSSIBLE FEDERAL AID IN CONSTRUCTING CONTROL FACILITIES

Mr. Bruce Howard (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. It concerns the news release today which indicates that the federal government will make a financial contribution to assist flood victims in British Columbia. No mention was made in the news release of any federal assistance toward the creation of better flood control facilities in the affected areas. Has the province of British Columbia requested any assistance for the construction of permanent flood control facilities and, if so, what answer did the federal government give?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I did send a telegram to Premier Bennett indicating the ways and conditions under which the federal government would contribute to such cases of damage arising from flood. But on the latter part of the question concerning whether there was any request for flood control building, expenditures or works, there was no such request in the telegram to me. Of course, we have in the past, even in that area of British Columbia, contributed to flood control
Inquiries of the Ministry
works and we would consider doing so again if a request were made.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the announcement of aid to flood victims in British Columbia would the right hon. gentleman consider aid to those who suffered from heavy frost in southern Ontario?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Crowfoot.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Labour. Will the arrangements which are in effect with regard to the trucking industry concerning hours of work be extended past July 1 this year?


Abram Ernest Epp: If we are
discussing the same regulations, they would come into effect on January 1, 1973.



COMBINES


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could direct a further question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Can he tell the House whether the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission has conducted raids or seized documents from the offices of the Pfizer Company in the course of an investigation into price-fixing in the sale of chemicals?


Robert Knight Andras: I will do a check, but my opinion now is that it would be improper for me to make any comment. I will, however, check to see if that interpretation is correct.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Would the minister, in the course of his investigation, read an Ontario publication called Farm and Country-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for St. John's East.

June 22, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION



NEWFOUNDLAND-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON RECOMMENDATIONS IN ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL STUDY

Mr. lames A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion when we can expect a policy statement on the special study the minister has had now for some time which was commissioned by the Atlantic Development Council on the operation of the Regional Development Incentives Act in the province of Newfoundland? That study contains some very important recommendations. When can we expect some action?


Jean Marchand: This is something we are discussing with the government of Newfoundland, and as soon as we reach agreement we will let the hon. member know what we decide.



ELECTIONS


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of local interest for the Prime Minister. Will a by-election be called to fill the vacancy in Ottawa Centre on October 16, the same day as the by-elections in York West and Trinity-Conception?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member's research staff is at least turning up questions now which are founded on fact, which was not the case in respect of his previous question to me a couple of days ago.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Just answer yes or no.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are running short of time. The right hon. gentleman has the floor for the purpose of replying to the question asked by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal. The hon. member for Mackenzie.



BARLEY-POSSIBLE EXTENSION OF DELIVERY QUOTA-AVAILABILITY OF BOXCARS

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. Since the 15-bushel quota for barley will be terminated tomorrow and many points have not had sufficient boxcars to take in the available barley in the area, is there enough barley in the system so that there will not be an

extension of that quota, or will there be additional quotas available in lieu of the present quota?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, when the Wheat Board increased the barley quota to 40 bushels with the additional 15 bushels and with a short time for delivery I had discussions with the board about the problem of the limited time available for delivery. They indicated they would be watching the situation very closely to try to ensure that every producer did have space and opportunity and that they would consider extensions if that seemed to be necessary to accommodate barley.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, since many of the elevator points have been emptying annexes which they intend to close down rather than taking in grain in the interval until boxcars are allocated, would the minister take that into consideration and would he spot cars particularly at those points where they have been carrying on that practice?


Otto Emil Lang: The minister, of course, does not spot cars, but I will certainly bring to the attention of officials the hon. member's concern about the situation.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
The minister stated yesterday, as reported at page 3343 of Hansard, that he had no knowledge of the incident which took place in Paris, where members of a Canadian delegation to Quebec House who wore Canadian flag lapel pins were provoked. Would the minister say whether he has now been informed of the incident?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have no more information yet except I understand that the prime minister of Quebec, who is a very good and distinguished Canadian, is looking into this incident himself. I am sure he would not want any unfortunate effect of the report that has been made to continue. As a good Canadian, he would want to be sure that there has been no insult to his fellow Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are only two minutes left before the end of the oral question period. Maybe the hon. member would hurry.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, has the Secretary of State for External Affairs made representations to the Quebec government in order to avoid the recurrence of such incidents and to have the Canadian flag respected in Quebec?
June 22, 1972


Mitchell William Sharp: I would want to be sure of the nature of the incident that took place. I am sure the prime minister of Quebec will be making inquiries along the same lines.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Walter Deakon (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the various questions involving the Minister of National Health and Welfare that were put when he was not here yesterday about the middle-income group and a statement made outside the House, I should like to ask him whether he would advise the House if he honestly believes, as reported, that the middle-income group-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member resume his seat. The hon. member will appreciate that he is asking the minister a question about a statement made outside the House. The only way such questions can be asked is by directing them to the Prime Minister to ascertain whether such statements represent government policy.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will have to call orders of the day after the point of order.


George Harris Hees: It is not the hon. member's fault, Mr. Speaker. He is simply reading it the way the minister wrote it out for him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member might like to rephrase his question.


Walter Cyril Deakon: Mr. Speaker, this happens to be a question of privilege because, I regret to say, in this House a backbencher on the government side rarely has the opportunity to say too much. I was speaking about the middle income group and I was the first member who raised this point. All of a sudden, the opposition finally saw the light.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter Cyril Deakon: I should like to rephase my question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House will appreciate that we have reached the end of the question period. The hon. member was recognized for the purpose of rephrasing the question but he rose rather on a question of privilege. With the consent of the House he might be allowed to rephrase the question.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Business of the House


Walter Cyril Deakon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether it is government policy that the middle-income group should be paying all the taxes in this country?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker-


George Harris Hees: Get out your music and sing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carr Munro: Inasmuch as various references have been made to the speech I made recently, the hon. member will be pleased to know that the speech contained the statement that the families who will lose all or part of family allowances make up only 28 per cent of the total cost of the family allowance program. That is hardly indicative-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please. Orders of the day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. MacLean:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the President of the Privy Council, in his capacity as House leader, if he would indicate what business the government proposes to place before the House at least for the next two or three days.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise hon. members that tomorrow we will begin government business by dealing with the Canadian Wheat Board bill, followed by the occupational training act, the Pension Act, the Family Income Security Plan, and the Canada Labour Code. In any event, on Monday we will begin with the foreign takeovers bill, and following that we will be able to return to any of these items that might still be uncompleted.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, in order to expedite the consideration of the business of the House, I should like to suggest that the first speaker for our party and the hon. member who will speak in reply be allotted 30 minutes each, that the spokesmen for the two other parties and all other speakers be allotted 20 minutes and we consider revising these rules of debate at eight o'clock tonight.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) that the House follow the provisions of Standing Order 58. In these circumstances, of course, it is not necessary to ask for consent.


John Angus MacLean: That is agreeable, Mr. Speaker.

June 22, 1972
Federal-Provincial Relations



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: That this House regrets the government's responsibility for the deterioration of federal-provincial relations as a result of its uncompromising attitudes and policies, its unilateral decisions and its refusal to meet legitimate needs of Canadian provinces, mainly through not making available to them the funds required for development, economic expansion and welfare of the population.
Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to move on behalf of my party, the Social Credit party of Canada, the motion now before us.
The Social Credit party of Canada is not the only one to take the federal government to task about this. And it is not the first time either that we state economic and financial principles such as these and level such constitutional criticisms.
We of the Social Credit party never missed the opportunity of asserting the fiscal rights of the provinces to enable them to meet the needs of their citizens.
I for one rose on several occasions in this House to urge the successive federal governments to give back to the province of Quebec what they had borrowed during the war and had formally promised to return.
But the federal government always turned a deaf ear and for the last four years we have felt that the more we tried to improve federal-provincial relations the more we stumbled against the stubbornness of this government which seems to do everything possible to disgust the province of Quebec and scuttle the confederation.
A close look at this makes one realize that this government closed the door to all negotiations, so much so that it does not even hear the outcries from the provinces. In Quebec, such an attitude would be understandable if there were a Conservative government in Quebec and a Liberal government in Ottawa, because we would then witness the traditional jousts in which those two old parties have engaged since confederation.
But to our astonishment, we realize that Quebec always suffered the worst political and constitutional setbacks whenever there was a Grit government both in Quebec and in Ottawa. Is it because the provincial premiers blindly put their faith in their Ottawa friends and that the latter turned that to account by pushing forward their centralizing views, or because party interests prevailed over those of the people?
That is a coincidence, some will say; however, it is so striking that any earnest Quebecer could hardly fail to consider it.
How far back should one go to find complaints from provincial governments and municipalities against the federal government? Probably at the very first federal-

provincial conference, which took place immediately after World War II when the province of Quebec, among others, asked for the return of its taxation rights which had been irresponsibly surrendered by Premier Godbout who simply wrote to Mr. Mackenzie King without even consulting the Quebec legislature.
At random, I shall refer to the minutes of federal-provincial conferences in order to show that the provinces have always asked for the return of their taxation powers or sometimes have again exchanged them for more funds to be provided as equalization payments.
Therefore, the whole matter revolves around questions of money, taxation and taxes.
The Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) said: We have spending powers; therefore, we have taxation rights In turn, the provinces say: We have spending powers; we also have taxation rights. Essentially, in that situation, the citizen reaps only taxation and taxes.
Let us go back to 1963. What did Quebec Liberal Premier Lesage have to say to the Liberal Pearson government about the Fulton-Favreau formula? On November 25, 1963, he said this:
The fiscal arrangements necessary to meet this situation that is the state of war were to be only temporary. At the beginning, it was believed that the spirit of federalism would be reasserted as soon as hostilities were over, but the economic consequences of the war lasted several years longer, years during which the former arrangements were maintained.
But we are now living in 1963. There is no longer a state of war, and the economic problems which confronted Canada after 1950 are not those of today. It is the needs of the provinces which, after all these years, have to take precedence over those of the federal government.
And Mr. Lesage explained his comments thus:
When we say that our needs have to take precedence, we are not expressing a subjective point of view. We are basing ourselves on facts that anyone can verify for himself.
In other words, our needs have not become priority ones because we wished them to be so, but because their nature rendered them thus.
We know that Quebec's needs are essential ones. We have already insisted upon this point. In brief, we have to improve our level of education, since the goal of national self-assertion for which we are now striving would otherwise be ephemeral.
We have to raise the level of public health and social welfare in our province, so that our citizens may play a more efficient part as producers in our economy and so that they may become happier human beings. Finally, it is necessary that the province be henceforth in a position to carry out its responsibilities in the economic sphere.
At the same time as the federal government's reasons for considering its needs as having priority over those of the provinces were losing their validity, another factor was manifesting itself, a factor of which all the countries of the world were aware, and the presence of which completely reversed the situation that prevailed from 1939 to about 1956. This factor is the new direction that must be followed by modern economic policy.
For many years, as we have pointed out, the problem of economic stability and that of inflation rightly preoccupied those who were responsible for the economic development of the country, and led them to adopt the measures that the situation called for. From the very fact of their actions and the cooperation of the private sector, these problems, without having disappeared entirely, have nevertheless been considerably attenuated. The problem that remains today, and in acute fashion, is that of economic
June 22, 1972

development, and this problem is far from being solved; on the contrary, it might very well be the cause of a large proportion of the unemployment that is continuing to plague the economy of Canada and Quebec.
With regard to this problem, which, if it is not a new one, is at least more present than ever before, we only have one question to ask: which, of the federal government or the provincial governments can best find the solution? And our answer is: the two sectors of government can take part in its solution-but it is an undeniable fact that the provinces have a great part to play in this regard.
The reason for this is very simple. Under the Canadian Constitution, the important elements of economic growth and the development of the wealth of the soil, which are but one aspect of the question, fall within the jurisdiction of the provinces. The latter actually control the greater number of factors through which a true development policy can come and can have a chance of success. The provinces are also in a position to influence the rate of their own industrial progress by their actions in the location of secondary industries, by laying out roads and communications to facilitate access to basic resources and by their absolute jurisdiction over municipal structures. Furthermore, they can participate directly in investments for the development of resources and the establishing of industries in places where economic conditions make it desirable. In other words, the provinces are better placed than the central government to initiate a policy of economic development, because they are closer to the particular problems of their people and the regions that make up their territory.
Thus spoke the Quebec premier in 1963. On the other hand, what did the New Brunswick premier, also a Liberal, Mr. Robichaud, have to say? I quote:
The Government of New Brunswick has at no time willingly accepted the terms of the Federal-Provincial Tax Rental Agreement currently in effect. This agreement has been a major step backward in the efforts being made to recognize the economic differences between the provinces.
The financial capacity of the provinces, necessary to provide essential services on an equal basis to the citizens of the whole country, has been seriously handicapped by those agreements. New Brunswick will insist during confederation that those agreements now in effect be renegotiated so that they may reflect more accurately the financial requirements of the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, while we attended those conferences as observers and that all seemed to be going just fine, as we say, that everybody seemed to agree, one could hear liberal premiers say that they were opposed to federal government initiatives in the fields under provincial jurisdiction.
Let us refer now to the Victoria federal-provincial conference. What were the premiers saying? We want more money.
Here is how Premier Robarts of Ontario voiced his thoughts:
Let me tell you how we visualize this in Ontario: If we cannot obtain a better share of tax revenues, and if we refuse to overtax our citizens and our industries, we will have to regress in our present programs. Among others, I will mention more specifically education, health, transportation, energy development, resource development, housing, urban renewal, and pollution.
It was then the turn of Mr. Jean-Jacques Bertrand, the then premier of Quebec, to complain of the interference and omnipresence of Ottawa-and I quote:
The present federal government, helped by a tax-sharing system of which it can never be said enough that it is unfair and goes against the legitimate freedom of provinces, discovers areas of responsibility for itself everywhere-in educational radio and television, cultural affairs, urban affairs, offshore mineral resources, securities trade, post-secondary education, university research, water, air and earth pollution, highway transportation, foreign relations even with regard to education or other provincial
Federal-Provincial Relations
matters, community development, and even civil law, through the estate tax.
It looks as if, to the federal government, provincial governments are at most administrative divisions of a wealthy, omnipotent, ruling central power.
What was then the reply of Canada's Prime Minister? Here it is:
The second issue of concern to us is spending power. This phrase as such does not appear in the text of the constitution, but we all know that spending power is a prerogative not only of the federal government, but of the provinces as well.
The federal government has used its spending power in connection with programs such as hospitalization insurance, welfare- under the Canada Assistance Plan-medicare, health programs, and several others which I mentioned yesterday. It is this spending power which has allowed for the introduction of such programs through the federal government.
It was for the premier of British Columbia, Mr. Bennett, to bring the debate back to its true proportions. And this is what he had to say:
It is not the spending power which is primarily at stake, but the power of taxation, the power of obtaining income from taxes. If there is money in the government chest, they will spend it even in areas of activities outside their jurisdiction: such is the problem that is eating away the confederation.
This problem has not arisen a century ago; it dates back to World War I. Mr. Thomas White, the then Minister of Finance, ventured for the first time into the income tax field. This did not occur 100 years ago.
He declared then that it was a provincial and not a federal prerogative which would be reviewed when the war ended. During World War II, the federal government laid claim to this whole area of taxation. In the intervening years after the war, Canada has experienced the greatest development in its history and tax income has considerably increased. Instead of surrendering this field of taxation to its rightful owners, the provinces, federal authorities have continued to replenish their chest. They went on exercising this provincial authority, which is the reason why we are now faced with so many problems with Quebec. British Columbia shares Quebec's position in this respect. This is the root of our constitutional difficulties and that is what we should brace ourselves to deal with.
This is where the central government has been guilty of excesses and this is the source of all our difficulties. Provincial governments cannot be certain of any income when the federal administration exercises this power: even municipal property tax is not safe anymore. Excluding the federal government, no province, municipality or city has any jurisdiction over any tax basis. Listen to this: Sir Thomas White states that it is a provincial area of taxation, but the federal government would not desist.
This is the root of the ill and, as premier of the province of British Columbia, I suggest that we should remove this aspect from the taxing powers held by the federal government.
Mr. Speaker, we realize that the premier of British Columbia has made no bones about it and that he was able to deal with the situation.
And as the Social Credit Party of Canada always strived to make constructive criticism, that is by making alternative proposals, I shall quote from a resolution passed by our national council, in April 1971, on our constitutional positions.
Paragraphs 3 and 4 read as follows:
3. However, the Social Credit Party of Canada believes that we must go beyond the present status quo which does not satisfy anybody and grant to provinces the power to be themselves, to develop and flourish according to their needs and aspirations.

June 22, 1972
Federal-Provincial Relations
4. Therefore, the Social Credit Party of Canada proposes the review and application of a renewed federalism in which provinces or groups of provinces will contribute, through their representatives or governments, to the development of policies relating to the whole country and benefitting all Canadians.
Specifically, the Social Credit Party suggests the drawing up of a new constitution that would be made in Canada, by Canadians, for Canadians, primarily to come back to the spirit of a true confederation, the components of which, namely the provinces, would take back the powers that are rightfully theirs, to safeguard their identity, to ensure the provinces true participation in monetary, fiscal and commercial decisions which, now taken at the federal level, have deep influence on the economy and the policies of the provinces.
The provincial governments should have their say in monetary policy decision-making. The exclusive control of the federal government over money and its extension, that is the credit it grants, its action on the rate of exchange, on the fluctuations of the money supply, on prices and inflation, directly influence the finances of the provinces and local economic development.
For these reasons, the provinces should take part in the development of this policy. In consultation with the central government, they should be allowed to mint their own credit, just as they are now able to borrow on their own credit.
As for customs, the provinces are now unable to protect their industries, whereas the central government may, by exercising its power to decree or negotiate customs tariffs, regulate exports and imports and greatly affect the economy of the provinces.
We feel that the negotiation of customs tariffs and the signing of important trade agreements should be done in consultation with and with the agreement of provincial governments.
What about taxation now? At the beginning direct taxation was reserved to the provinces and this was their only source of income. Policies adopted in wartime first led the central government to deprive the provinces of this source of income; today, the constant presence of the central government in the field of direct taxation results in practically freezing and annihilating the freedom and power of the provinces in this field.
The growing needs of the provinces in the education, social security and industrial development fields entail the restitution to them of their direct taxation power.
Under social security we class family allowances, old age security, health and housing. These fields fall within provincial jurisdiction under the constitution.
We contend that because of the various statutes governing these fields efficient planning it not possible.
On the other hand, as Quebec intends and justly so to keep its constitutional and historic job as guardian of the French Canadian culture it must be able to organize its social life in accordance with its aspirations and its own ideas. We believe however that some machinery should be put in place so that such measures may be applied from coast to coast, the federal government acting as co-ordinator on a national basis.
As far as education is concerned, it is a field that comes exclusively under provincial jurisdiction and it should remain there.
That, Mr. Speaker, is what the Social Credit suggests as a remedy for the present difficulties we are in, before the country falls into anarchy and revolution.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, please excuse my hesitancy in rising. Thinking that perhaps the minister might want to speak, I wanted to defer to him in case he rose.
The motion proposed by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) gives us plenty of scope to discuss the constitutional arrangements of our country and permits us to recall that just one year ago we seemed to be at the point of reaching agreement, "we" meaning the government of Canada and the provinces, on proposals submitted at what has become the ill-fated Victoria conference. Since then, the constitutional discussion has lapsed and the secretariat in the Office of the Prime Minister has been put on half pay, so to speak. The argument is pursued by press release and by unilateral statement. Just in the last week, we witnessed the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) approaching the Quebec Minister of Social Affairs, convoyed or shepherded by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand). That was an interesting spectacle.
Four years ago, when former prime minister Lester Pearson opened the first federal-provincial conference on reform of the constitution with stirring words which, in the opinion of many, expressed optimism and were a declaration of the seriousness of the purpose of the conference, he said:
There are times in the life of a country when the assurance of good intentions, the discharge of normal duty and acceptance of routine responsibility, are not enough. What such times demand is the exercise of courage and decision that go far beyond the needs of the moment. I believe that this is such a time for Canada."
It is tragic that in the intervening four years we have witnessed what could fairly be termed as a heating up of constitutional debate and, finally, a running down of will, so to speak, on the part of this government and many other governments of this country. That brave spirit has faltered. Because it faltered, the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) has put forward his resolution.
The Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the Constitution reported on March 16 of this year. It made some 105 recommendations. The first was a series on the constitution, including its patriation. The committee made suggestions about the people of our country, their language rights and what we call their fundamental rights. It discussed federal institutions such as the Supreme Court, Parliament, both its branches, and the head of state. Important recommendations were made about the division of powers. I think it is time to recall some of the recommendations. The second was, and I quote:
A new Canadian Constitution should be based on functional considerations, which would lead to greater decentralization of governmental powers in areas touching culture and social policy

June 22, 1972

and to greater centralization in powers which have important economic effects at the national level. Functional considerations also require greater decentralization in many areas of governmental administration.
I think it is safe to say that when these recommendations were being prepared, we were conscious that the most critical challenge, and I quote from the report:
-focuses on Quebec's.role in Confederation. Questions of Quebec's self-expression and development, culture, language, poverty and unemployment are part of this challenge. Its intensity and magnitude alone, with its threat to our very continuance as a state, is enough to justify constitutional reform.
I think it is correct to say that through the formula of centralization of what I might call the economic powers and the decentralization of social responsibilities, we thought there might be a formula for a second century of federalism.
I wish to go on because in the few minutes that are mine this is perhaps the only theme I will have time to discuss. The committee went from that early recommendation to one in Part IV, The Governments; the division of powers. I suppose it is best to number the recommendations for those who will follow me and will want to make use of this speech. I quote:
49.	The use of exclusive lists of federal and provincial powers, but with an extended list of concurrent powers, should be continued.
50.	Concurrent powers which predominantly affect the national interest should grant paramountcy to the federal Parliament and those which predominantly affect provincial or local interests should grant paramountcy to the provincial legislatures.
51.	The Constitution should permit the delegation of executive and administrative powers (as at present), but not of legislative powers, except where expressly specified in this report.
We heard many reasons from all across Canada to support these recommendations. They are listed on page 43 of the report. I would like to share one or two of them because we have not really had a chance to discuss in extenso this report. I quote:
(1)	The federal Parliament does not have sufficient power to manage and plan the economy.
(2)	The federal Parliament does not have sufficient power to cope with large multinational corporations, international unions, and the overwhelming influence and power of the United States of America.
(3)	The citizens of Canada are handicapped by the lack of national standards in education.
We heard about other things such as bilingualism, securities regulation, pollution control, trade regulations and so on. Of course, some of these areas were known to the committee before we started our work. Others were underlined by witnesses whom we heard across the country.
I suggest there is an obligation upon us to try to revise the will of the respective governments to reach some sort of an agreement. I believe that in the area of social policy, the agreement or potential agreement between the government of Canada and that of Quebec is fairly close. What the committee sought to do was to redistribute power. After all, that is what a constitution in a federal state is about, or the main thing that it is about. It can be couched in dull or eloquent language. It can be made impossibly dull by legalism, but really what we are talking about is the distribution of power between those who have
Federal-Provincial Relations
the responsibility for government at the federal and provincial levels.
We suggested that the provinces should have more control over social policy ranging all the way from welfare to educational television. The provinces could then fix their own priorities in light of their own cultural and economic development and the government of Canada would be given more power to control the national economy. Of course a spillage, or more than a spillage, a result of this would be the fact that by being able to control the national economy, some of the priorities of the provinces could be adjusted from time to time as the economy picks up, unemployment drops and so on. Incidentally, we have not had a response from the government of Canada on the recommendations of the committee, at least as far as I am aware.
Mr. Pearson expressed the urgency some four years ago in this way, and I quote:
Here the road forks. If we have the resolution and the wisdom to choose now the right course and to follow it steadfastly, I can see few limits to what we may achieve together as a people. But if we lack the courage to choose, or if we choose wrongly, we will leave to our children, and our children's children, a country in fragments, and we ourselves would have become the failures of Confederation.
I do not want to be boastful, but I do say that it was a great privilege to serve on the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on the Constitution. I felt very strongly gripped by the sense of urgency which one can see if he reads the various recommendations. I certainly hope that the debate in which we are engaged today will provide a forum so that others who feel as I do can expound a bit on this committee report.
The problem of jurisdiction in the field of social policy arises partly from the lack of a clarifying section in the constitution. Responsibilities tend to lie with the government which produces legislation. Both Quebec and Ottawa have legislated in the social field. Both claim the right to do so. I hope in the few minutes remaining to me to discuss the positions taken by the respective governments. If I may put it this way, Quebec's traditional claim that the actions of the federal government are unconstitutional in this field is based on section 92 of the British North America Act dealing with family and educational matters, and the premise that social security measures as a whole bear directly on the culture of a people enabling them to express themselves collectively. Thus, the province asserts a right to complete jurisdiction over all social policies.
At the moment, Quebec exercises complete jurisdiction over workmen's compensation, the Quebec pension plan, its own supplementary family allowance plan and its own schooling allowances. It demands exclusive jurisdiction in the field of income security, manpower, including vocational training, and manpower centres, social services, including those links with the administration of justice, health services, including financial programs such as hospital insurance and health insurance, housing and leisure-what governments may feel called upon to do, though this may seem paradoxical, to fill the "vacuum"

June 22, 1972
Federal-Provincial Relations which may arise in some cases as a result of the short working week.
I think I can put the position of the federal government fairly, or, at least, I can attempt to do so. It is that federal control in the welfare field is necessary in the national interest to promote equality among all Canadians. For this reason, Ottawa wishes to preserve its involvement in various income support and insurance programs, specifically, in its guaranteed income supplement, old age security, unemployment insurance, family allowances, youth allowances, Canada Pension Plan and veterans pension plans. The specific issue is legislative primacy in the field of family allowances. Ottawa's position on family allowances was articulated after negotiations with Quebec in a letter to Premier Bourassa, dated March 9, 1972. Basically, the plan proposed that the federal government set minimum standards, define income so as to correspond with the definition of the federal Revenue Department, and issue the cheques. The provinces would determine who should receive benefits and to what extent, subject to federally-established minimum rates. Where a recipient was to receive more under a provincial scheme the province could issue its own supplementary cheques or arrange with Ottawa to administer a single, combined payment. Quebec's reaction to the federal plan was not favourable. The question of legislative primacy-the issue most important to the province's future development of its own social policy-was settled in favour of the federal government.
To understand why Quebec clings so tenaciously to its demands for legislative primacy, it is essential to understand the province's conception and definition of social policy. In contrast to Ottawa's narrow definition, including only old age security and income supplement, unemployment insurance, family and youth allowances, and pension plans, Quebec's concept of social policy is a broad, global one. An income security plan similar to the entire group of existing federal plans forms only a base for a wide range of policies pertaining to manpower, health, social services, housing and leisure. Thus, where the federal definition ends, the provincial one only begins.
I suppose I could be accused of failing to contribute very much to this debate, because I am not prepared to say which position is the correct one. I suppose each possesses a measure of correctness; it is merely that the concepts are different. All I ask is that there should be sufficient flexibility in the approach of the Government of Canada toward a very different concept, an unEnglish concept of social development in Canada, if I can put it that way. The situation is perfectly well understood, I believe, by leaders of the Quebec government, but not so clearly understood by the Government of Canada and by many of us in this parliament who have other responsibilities.
What I am saying, really, is that we should continue to go forward together in the same direction and that we ought not to be terribly worried because our concepts are not exactly the same; indeed, we should be encouraged and excited by the fact that these difference exist. On the other hand, Quebec, or any other province, for that matter, which is anxious to pursue its own social policy should remember there must be an overrriding ability on

the part of the federal government in the field of manpower, vocational training and so on, to discharge responsibilities which surely must be national in character if we are to maintain a country at all. I hope I shall not become tied up in this argument, but I welcome the opportunity to comment on the report of the Special Committee on the Constitution. Despite its shortcomings it is significant-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, in my view the Creditiste party is to be commended for birnging to the attention of the House the constitutional problem which is facing Canada. I must say I feel myself in agreement in many ways with the hon. member for Fundy Royal (Mr. Fairweather), which is not remarkable, perhaps, since we were colleagues on the committee to which he referred. I intend to discuss the constitutional aspect of the motion and to leave to the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) consideration of the financial aspects of federal-provincial arrangements, an extremely important aspect and one which is mentioned in the motion.
This debate gives me an opportunity to say that the government greeted the report of the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada with resounding silence. I suggest this is not good enough. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was elected partly because of his promise to build a strong united Canada and because of his reputation as an outstanding constitutional lawyer who could presumably deal with constitutional matters satisfactorily. He has now taken refuge behind a series of federal-provincial constitutional conferences culminating in the impasse that followed the Victoria conference when Mr. Bourassa refused to accept the federal formula of amendment to the constitution because of differences in respect of family allowances. The Prime Minister has in effect announced a policy of acceptance of the impasse which has resulted in total inactivity on the constitutional front. The learned and distinguished hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) who, as joint chairman of the committee, made a tremendous contribution to the report, has not moved concurrence in the report of that committee. Indeed, until today hardly a word has been said about the report in this House, although I understand there was a debate on it in the other place.
I suggest this is a rather extraordinary situation, because the report did indeed produce a remarkably useful consensus from all regions and all parties of Canada as well as from members of the Senate. The press, indeed, made it appear that the most striking feature of the report was the fact that several members filed minority or dissenting statements. In fact, the emphasis should have been just the other way about. What was remarkable was not the extent of the dissent, but the extent of agreement reached by the members of this committee on a host of difficult subjects profoundly affecting the future of Canada.
In a so-called minority report two members of the committee, the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland) and
June 22, 1972

myself, did express disagreement on certain issues of the report, but we also expressed our opinion that the report formed a basis for settling urgent constitutional problems facing Canada. We further expressed the opinion that the report could contribute to the future unity of Canada. We had certain reservations on some subjects which I will mention later, but on the whole we found the report an excellent basis for further advance on the constitutional front.
What we find completely unsatisfactory is that the report should be ignored. There may have been some excuse for not dealing with it when an immediate election was in the air, but with the prospects of an election put off at least for some months, some statement of the government's intention in respect of a report of such profound importance ought to have been made. Perhaps some spokesman on the government side will take the opportunity afforded by this debate to state the government's attitude towards the report of the committee.
As the hon. member for Fundy-Royal said, the report contains some 105 recommendations. It comes out sharply and strongly in favour of a new constitution for Canada, although in actual fact it recommends accepting many of the existing arrangements in the present British North America Act. It is not a radical or revolutionary document, but it does propose important changes. We believe there are enough important changes to justify the view that substantial acceptance of the report would, in effect, give Canada a new and modern constitution and eliminate much of what is obsolete, inadequate and offensive in the present British North America Act.
We commend the report for its recommendation that basic and fundamental rights should be entrenched in the constitution. We have long argued that this is fundamental to a free society such as we have in Canada. We think the constitution should recognize, as the report suggests, the special position of native peoples in Canada. We also agree that actual constitutional changes in respect of native peoples should await full consultation with their own organizations, after they have completed the researches in which they are presently engaged.
With regard to the crucial question of the division of powers, we accept the basic proposal in the report that the powers of the provincial legislatures should be enlarged in all areas touching on social and cultural policy, and the powers of the federal Parliament should be clarified and enlarged with regard to important economic policies affecting Canada as a whole. I know such generalities are not easy to work out, but I think this is a useful guideline contained in the report.
The proposal in the report with regard to income support measures seems to me to be ingenious. It proposes to give control over the details and the distribution of these moneys provided as income support to the provincial level, while retaining the federal government's own role of control of the economic aspects.
We particularly welcome in the report the clarification of the paramount federal power in respect of air and water pollution, or the suggestion that there should be clarification. In our view this is an urgent matter and it may well be that even if there is difficulty in getting provincial agreement to some of the recommendations in
Federal-Provincial Relations
the report, the provinces generally would welcome these recommendations so as to establish basic responsibility for national standards to prevent air and water pollution. In our view, the battle against pollution clearly requires national standards to be set and maintained even though the provinces and municipalities may have an important role to play.
The report deals with the issue of self-determination. It does not propose a right of secession to be written into the constitution, but it does declare that if the citizens of a part of Canada at some time democratically declare themselves in favour of a political arrangement which is contrary to the continuation of present political structure, this disagreement should be resolved by political negotiation and not by the use of military or other coercive force. This is an extremely important announcement. I doubt if it has ever been enunciated officially before by anybody in Canada. It deserves full debate and we should certainly like to know where the government stands on it. I may say that the members of the committee unanimously endorsed the full statement which appears as recommendation 8:
We reaffirm our conviction that all of the peoples of Canada can achieve their aspirations more effectively within a federal system, and we believe Canadians should strive to maintain such a system.
I believe that chapter on self-determination should be historical, and it seems odd to me it should pass by with practically no notice in this House.
There is no doubt that the issue of self-determination has an important psychological effect in the province of Quebec. We do not think the issue can just be ignored. We accept in this party the proposition that the unity of Canada must be based on consent and not on military coercion.
There are a few important points on which the hon. member for Selkirk and myself have expressed our disagreement with the report. The report pays lip service to the need for flexibility in the constitution, but it rejects what appears to us to be the most useful method of providing such flexibility, namely the right of Parliament to delegate specific powers to provincial legislatures and the right of provincial legislatures to delegate specific legislative powers to the federal Parliament. This is a technical matter but it is of crucial importance. There are many powers, of course, both federal and provincial in the present British North America Act which cannot and should not be delegated. Delegation is a matter of consent, and unless the federal Parliament and the provincial legislatures consent to the delegation it cannot take effect. There may well be cases, however, where some provinces may wish to delegate powers to the federal government while others would not. We do not think this should be prohibited by the constitution, but in fact that it should be explicitly permitted by the constitution. In our view, failure to deal with this issue is the failure of imagination and the failure to provide the flexibility which is clearly desirable.
A substantial subject of discussion in the report was the detailed proposals to change the powers and the method of selection of the Senate. The report actually proposes to increase the number of Senate members. We made our view very clear, and it is not exactly original, so I will not enlarge on it. Our view is that the Senate should be

June 22, 1972
Federal-Provincial Relations
abolished. Our view is that a non-elected legislative assembly is an anomaly in a modern democracy. The Canadian federal system provides ample checks and balances. A Senate, revised with regard to its method of selection, could turn out to be a source of legislative deadlock, and that would not help the government of this country at all.
We find the recommendation with regard to income control quite inadequate. The recommendation proposes that in cases of national emergency, as defined by the Parliament of Canada, the provinces should delegate to the federal Parliament all additional powers necessary to control wages, prices and other forms of income including rent, dividends and profits. It is my view that the battle against inflation is essentially an economic national and federal concern, and one that should not be exercised only when a national emergency exists, nor should it be by delegation from the provinces. The report has recommended greater centralization of the powers that have important economic effects at the national level. Who can deny that the inflationary spiral has important economic effects at the national level? How and when this power of control over income should be exercised is a subject which I do not think is relevant to this debate. But from a constitutional point of view, Parliament and the provincial legislatures should have concurrent powers in respect of control over inflation and particularly in respect to control over incomes, and the federal power should be paramount.
There are other details in the report on which we will express, and on appropriate occasions will continue to express, our reservations. In particular, we are opposed to recommendation number 17 by what the individual person would be constitutionally protected against the arbitrary seizure of his property, except for the public good and for just compensation. History has demonstrated that similar efforts to protect property constitutionally have been used by courts to frustrate legislative supremacy in respect of social questions. In our view, the Bill of Rights should be confined to human rights and should not attempt to protect property rights. The report, in recommendation number 21, proposes a somewhat vague and general limitation or exception to the rights and freedoms to be recognized in the Bill of Rights. We regard this limitation as unnecessary, and believe that it would prevent the courts from giving full and adequate effect to the provisions of the Bill of Rights itself.
However, despite our reservations we have, as I have already mentioned, found much to commend in the report of the joint committee. As the joint committee points out, its report was the result of extensive research, lengthy public hearings in all parts of Canada and the determined effort by the committee members to grapple with the constitutional problems of Canada. I share with the hon. member for Fundy-Royal the pleasure and pride of having been a part of that committee, the members of which worked together very well. I say it would be a tragedy if the report were to be ignored. I ask the government to take this opportunity to announce its intention with regard to this important report.


Hon. P. M. Mahoney (Minister of State):: Mr. Speaker, before dealing with the motion I should like to accept, for a moment, the invitation, to discuss the over-all constitutional aspect. Certainly, the government does recognize the very valuable work and very valuable contribution made by the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada, and the work of the members of all parties of both chambers on that committee. The federal government's position on this matter is that it is ready and willing to sit down with the provincial governments the moment there is something substantial forthcoming to discuss. I am sure we were as disappointed as anyone with the failure of the Victoria Charter to gain the support of all governments, something which had seemed so near a year ago. The initiative for the last round of federal-provincial constitutional conferences, of course, came from the provincial level, the impetus being provided by the Federation for Tomorrow Conference convened by the then Premier of Ontario, John Robarts.
It would appear appropriate that the initiative for the next series of meetings, if they are to be held, should come again from the provincial level because, certainly the federal government has done everything it could reasonably be expected to do in order to achieve agreement and has achieved agreement with a majority of provinces. However, it has seen that agreement eroded. The government of Saskatchewan did not, of course, concur in the Victoria Charter because of a change of government at that time and has been silent on the matter since then. The government of Quebec rejected the charter. Regrettably the government of Alberta, since a change of government there, appears to have rejected it and to have reversed a commitment made by the previous government there.
Speaking on behalf of the government in respect of the motion before us, I must object strongly to all aspects of the proposition contained in this motion. To begin with, I do not accept that the present state of federal-provincial relations is bad or that it has deteriorated. Rather it is one where governments are in close touch with each other on a wide range of matters, marked by vigorous efforts to co-ordinate actions and policies in an increasingly complex and inter-related world. Consultation and co-operation-and I will demonstrate that this is the rule rather than the exception-is what we are talking about. At the same time it is seen by the federal government and by most provincial governments that precisely what we are talking about is consultation and co-operation and not abdication of constitutional rights or responsibilities. The right to consult is not construed by either the federal or most provincial governments as a right of veto.
I should like to furnish hon. members with quotations from provincial budget speeches for the current year referring to examples of this co-operation. These extracts come from two provinces, one with a Progressive Conservative government and one with a New Democratic government. First, I quote from the budget statement of March 28, 1972 by the Hon. W. Darcy McKeough, Treasurer of the Province of Ontario. On page 12 of this document, we find the following:
The Ontario government will introduce this year a property tax credit plan which relates the property tax burden borne by each taxpayer in Ontario to his ability to pay, as determined under the
June 22, 1972

personal income tax system. For three years Ontario has pressed the federal government to incorporate a credit against property taxes within the basic income tax system. Now, the federal government has agreed to administer this plan beginning with the 1972 taxation year, and the Ontario government will finance it for the benefit of Ontario taxpayers. For this positive decision I sincerely thank the Minister of Finance. I would also like to commend the Department of National Revenue which worked closely with us to iron out the administrative and operational details of our property tax credit plan. This is an excellent example of how two levels of government can work together harmoniously.
Secondly, may I turn to the 1972 budget address of the Hon. Saul Cherniack, Minister of Finance of the Province of Manitoba. On page 18 of the published text of his address I find the following statement made with reference to the Manitoba education property tax plan:
We have received excellent co-operation from the federal government and I want to express my appreciation to the former and the present federal Ministers of Finance, to their staffs, and to the Minister and staff of the Department of National Revenue. This is an example of good federal-provincial co-operation which hopefully will continue and grow.
Mr. Speaker, these are only two examples of the numerous ways in which the governments of Canada and the provinces are co-operating with each other. I might give a brief, quantitative analysis to indicate the extent of this co-operation. In 1957, there were five committees of ministers between the federal and provincial governments, that is first ministers or other ministers and of their federal and provincial counterparts. There were 59 federal-provincial committees of officials, for a total of 64 ongoing groups of committees that were meeting on either an ad hoc or on a regular basis. By 1967, the number of ministerial committees had increased to 14, the number of official committees to 105, for a total of 119. By 1970, the number of committees of joint federal-provincial ministers had increased to 18; there were over 200 ongoing federal-provincial committees for a total of well over 220 ongoing committees. In 1967, there was a total of 13 ministerial meetings between federal and provincial officials, that is formal meetings of first ministers and other ministers, and 18 meetings of deputy ministers, for a total of 31. In 1971, there were 20 formal ministerial meetings and 22 deputy ministerial meetings. So in four years the meetings increased from 31 to 42, just as standing committee numbers had increased from 64 in 1957 to 119 in 1967, to over 220 by 1970.
Another method of federal-provincial consultation is, of course, the bilateral consultation in which the federal ministers and their officials consult with their counterparts in all or a majority of the provinces, depending on the interest in important individual subjects. I will give a brief resume of the more conspicuous of these over the last three or four years. The former Minister of Justice visited all provincial attorneys general and justice ministers during the constitutional review. He visited all provincial justice ministers or attorneys general on the subject of the Official Languages Act before it was carried through the House of Commons. The former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs during that period had discussed security regulations with appropriate provincial ministers. The former Minister of Labour discussed the
Federal-Provincial Relations
unemployment insurance legislation with all provincial governments before it was brought forward in the House.
The then Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources discussed the Canada Water Act with the appropriate provincial ministers. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) discussed the Clean Air Act similarly. The Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) on separate occasions discussed with the responsible provincial ministers the financing of post secondary education, telecommunications, and the summer employment programs introduced by the government so successfully. The Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) discussed the housing and urban renewal legislation. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) discussed the costs of health and post secondary education programs with the appropriate provincial ministers. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) discussed with the provincial agricultural ministers the agriculture stabilization legislation, and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray) has just completed a round of meetings with provincial cabinet ministers on the subject of the takeover review legislation.
These examples are in addition to numerous private meetings between the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and provincial first ministers as they visit Ottawa or between federal ministers and individual provincial ministers on matters of particular interest and concern to them. There are, of course, differences between governments, but it would be an extraordinary thing if this were not the case, having regard to the numerous ways in which the actions of one government can affect the others. The important thing is not that there are differences but that the governments are continually striving to settle these differences, that they are doing so in a spirit of goodwill and co-operation, and that they are succeeding in so many areas.
Mr. Speaker, I must assert that the federal government has not displayed intransigent attitudes or policies; rather, it has explicitly recognized that many of its actions do affect the provinces and has repeatedly sought their views before implementing its own proposals. I could cite many examples where we have consulted with the provinces and have modified legislation in order to take account of the views which we have received from the provinces. Perhaps the most important example in recent years has been the federal income tax reform legislation enacted late in 1971. In this case, as hon. members know, many of the changes which were incorporated in the final legislation were made to meet criticisms received from the provinces at numerous conferences relating to this subject over a span of some years.
Another important illustration is provided by the new federal-provincial fiscal arrangements legislation which was enacted by Parliament earlier this year following nearly two years of discussions with the provinces. These discussions were undertaken at various levels; with ministers looking at broad policies, senior officials examining such matters in depth, and other officials-in working groups or subcommittees-undertaking intensive studies of particular areas.
I should note that one of the problems which inevitably tends to arise in federal-provincial discussions is that different provinces have differing interests and hence frequently opposing views. This is natural in any federa-

June 22, 1972
Federal-Provincial Relations tion as broad and diverse as the Canadian one. The federal program for equalizing provincial revenues provides one example of this type of situation. The federal government has found that most provinces try to look at matters such as this objectively, including those that derive direct benefits and those which do not. Nevertheless, differing viewpoints will emerge and it falls to the federal government to try to reconcile these and to set a course which will accord as closely as possible with the national interest. At times, this task of reconciliation of the interests of divergent regions can be a difficult one, and any national government which approached this in a spirit of intransigence would be foolish indeed.
Mr. Speaker, I should touch upon the reference in the resolution to unilateral decisions. In one sense, of course, decisions are taken unilaterally. Federal policies are implemented pursuant to federal statutes and these are enacted by the Canadian Parliament. Is this what this resolution means by unilateral? If so, it is being suggested that federal legislation should be enacted by some body other than Parliament? Or is it being suggested that Members of Parliament ignore regional needs when they vote upon an issue? If these viewpoints are being put forward, I must emphatically reject them.
Perhaps, however, the resolution is intended to imply that the federal government is taking unilateral decisions and then somehow forcing these through Parliament. Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept this interpretation. As I have just said, where provinces are affected by federal legislation, there is invariably an opportunity for them to make their views known. Usually this opportunity is provided both before and after legislation is introduced in Parliament. This government will continue to provide these opportunities. This government will not take decisions without ascertaining what provincial views are or without considering how they may best be taken into account. This government will never ignore the views or the needs of the provinces.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I come to the allegation that the federal government is not making enough funds available to the provinces. This is an argument which we frequently hear in Canada. It arises, no doubt, because of the rapid increase in needs for many of the services which are provided by provincial and municipal governments in Canada. Thus during the post war era there have been greatly expanded needs for elementary, secondary and post secondary education, for hospitals, for medical services, for pollution control and various other services which fall primarily to the provinces.
The provinces and municipalities have, in fact, enormously expanded their expenditures to meet these needs. Thus total provincial-municipal expenditures have increased from approximately $2.3 billion in 1951 to $5.4 billion in 1961 to $18.1 billion in 1971. At the same time, their share of total government expenditures has expanded markedly. On a national accounts basis, this share was just slightly over 40 per cent in 1951, increased to nearly 50 per cent in 1961 and reached approximately 60 per cent by 1971. The federal government has not stood in the way of the provinces and municipalities when they looked for funds to finance these rapidly growing expenditures. Rather the federal government has moved on a broad

front to provide help. This has been done in many ways. First, the federal government has made tax room available to the provinces by repeated cuts in its own taxes during the past two decades. Thus during the postwar period the reduction in federal personal income tax to make room for the provinces was successively increased from a low of 5 per cent up to 28 per cent by 1967. This reduction was built into the reformed income tax system which went into effect this year. However, the provinces have been free for some years to impose personal income taxes at whatever rates they wished, and not only have we collected this fast growing tax for them but we have done so free of any charge. Other federal taxes have been reduced as well. The reduction in corporation income tax has been doubled from 5 per cent to 10 per cent, and the federal government has terminated its taxes in the field of death duties.
I should like to refer to the U.S. President's Advisory Committee on Intergovernmental Relations which, in a report to the President of the United States just last year, said that Canada's "tax sharing strengthens the fiscal capacity of the provinces within the Canadian federation" and that it has "gone a long way in reducing the general revenue imbalance."
Most of the remarkable gains chalked up by the provinces during the 1950's and 1960's can be attributed to the willingness of the federal policymakers to negotiate with provincial leadership, and the decision to share their prime revenue source with the provinces. Much of the expansion in provincial-municipal revenues has occurred during the period since 1963 when the Pearson government took office in Ottawa. In 1963 provincial-municipal revenues from taxation were $4.8 billion. By 1971 they had increased to $13 billion. That is a remarkable increase, and much greater than that experienced by the federal government itself.
Apart from tax reductions and tax collection services, the federal government has helped the provinces and municipalities through very large increases in transfer payments. These transfers have been of various kinds. Large sums have been transferred under shared cost programs. These programs have enabled the federal government to share approximately one half of the cost of financing those fields where expenditures have been escalating most rapidly, notably including post-secondary education, hospitals, medical care insurance and welfare. Many of these programs were started since 1963, including the Canada Assistance Plan, the post-secondary education program, and medical care insurance. In addition to these shared cost programs there have been various special expenditures or loan programs relating to pollution control, betterment of the environment, housing, and regional economic expansion. Many of these programs were started just in the past few years.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, there have been large increases in unconditional transfers, particularly in equalization payments to provinces with below average tax capacity. The equalization program has provided a financial underpinning to seven provinces which are presently in this position and has enabled these provinces to provide their citizens with a level of expenditures closely similar to that
June 22, 1972

of the higher income provinces at reasonably comparable rates of taxation. Expenditures under this program will be approximately $1.1 billion in the present fiscal year and will likely attain $1.5 billion by 1976-77, the last year of the current five year fiscal arrangements with the provinces.
Early this session Parliament passed this new legislation which establishes the over-all framework of fiscal relations between the federal and provincial governments over the next five year period. That act deals with a number of important matters, of which three are particularly relevant in this context. First, it is the basis for income tax sharing between the federal and provincial governments. Most importantly, it provides a basis for these two levels of government to co-ordinate their use of the personal income tax and corporation income tax fields without fixing limits or controls over the rates of tax which each level may impose, and it does this within a unified national tax system. Second, because any given level of taxation provides a greater fiscal yield in some provinces than others, the act provides for equalization payments from the federal government to provinces whose per capita revenue raising capacity is below that of the national average. Equalization payments were started specifically in 1957 and they have been progressively broadened since then. They now represent over 5 per cent of all federal revenues.
From the point of view of the receiving provinces the importance of equalization payments is evident when you know that for three provinces in 1971-72 equalization transfers were equal to between 13 per cent and 16 per cent of gross revenues. For two others the comparable figure was more than 33 per cent, and for the two poorest provinces equalization transfers were equal to 55 per cent and 66 per cent of revenues. Third, the legislation has a provision under which the federal government guarantees to make a grant to any province whose revenues fall below 100 per cent of those received in the immediately preceding year except to the extent that such a shortfall is caused by a reduction in provincial tax rates. While we hope that this will never be operative it is an important assurance against a sudden slump in revenues which might occur in a particular province. Between 1957 and 1969, provincial shares of total governmental revenue collections rose from 18 per cent to 33 per cent, whereas the federal proportion fell from 69 per cent to 52 per cent.
In addition, the federal government co-operates with the provinces in several shared cost programs, of which the largest are in the fields of health, welfare and postsecondary education. Others will deal with health and welfare, but in the case of post-secondary education the federal government transfers an amount generally equal to 50 per cent of virtually all post-secondary education operating expenditures. Last year the transfer totalled over $870 million. This year it is expected that it will total almost $1 billion. On a per capita basis, the amount transferred varies from one province to another, but the national average last year was $44 per capita.
I should again refer hon. members to the record of this government during the 1963 to 1971 period. In 1963, when the government assumed office, total transfers to the provinces and municipalities were running at a level of
Federal-Provincial Relations
$1,169 million. By 1968 this had doubled to $2,452 million, and by 1971 it had nearly doubled again to $4,348 million. Mr. Speaker, does this suggest that this federal government has neglected the provinces? Does it suggest that we are insensitive to the well being and needs of their governments and of their populations?
I could cite other facts and make other points at some length. However, that is not necessary. The motion which is before us is barren and lacking in substance. It does not deserve the support of this House. I urge all hon. members to vote against it.


Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweath-er), has dealt quite exhaustively with the constitutional aspects of this motion. I propose to confine my remarks to the financial aspects so far as the provinces are concerned. I am impressed with that part of the motion which reads that the House regrets the government's:
-refusal to meet legitimate needs of Canadian provinces, mainly through not making available to them the funds required for development, economic expansion and welfare of the population.
There is a reference to the refusal of the government to meet the legitimate needs of Canadian provinces. I am inclined to support the resolution because I come from one of the provinces where the need is great, a province that actually does need help from the federal government. The mover of this motion realizes that action must be taken to reduce the growing gap between the rich and the poor provinces of Canada.
I should like to take this opportunity to place on the record, as clearly and succinctly as I can, the severe economic situation facing the government and the people of my province. I do so in the hope that it may foster a desire on the part of the government of Canada to do something to relieve a very distressing problem immediately. I think it is generally realized that each region of this country must be accepted as an integral part of Canada and each region should be developed according to its special needs and its potential. This matter of reducing the gap between the rich and the poor provinces is a national problem and the major responsibility for solving it must rest with the federal government. That idea has been recognized by the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) who, in a speech on September 14,1966, made the following statement:
Where circumstances-whether natural or man-made-have channelled a larger-than-average share of the nation's wealth into certain sections of the country, there should be a redistribution of that wealth so that all provinces are able to provide to their citizens a reasonably comparable level of basic services, without resorting to unduly burdensome levels of taxation.
I think that statement sets out the situation very clearly and conveys the idea that there is a responsibility on the federal government to see that the poorer provinces of Canada are given a chance to maintain a standard of living for their citizens comparable to that of other provinces which are better off. This principle was also recognized by the Rowell-Sirois Commission which in 1940 recommended that:

June 22, 1972
Federal-Provincial Relations
The national adjustment grants be subject to review by an independent advisory commission every five years, and that this commission would recommend to the dominion an increase in the adjustment grant whenever a provincial government established that it could not supply Canadian average standards of service and balance its budget without taxation (provincial and municipal) appreciably exceeding the national average in relation to income.
I think these two statements set out very clearly the position in which the poorer provinces of Canada find themselves, and the responsibility of the federal government to help those provinces not in a position to help themselves. If that famous promise we heard prior to the last election of a just society is ever going to be anything more than a flimsy and meaningless promise, every citizen must have the right, first of all, to acquire an adequate income and, second, to enjoy those essential public services available in the richer provinces of this country. The federal government must be made to realize that the major burden of financing regional growth problems is its responsibility. Why must it be the federal government's responsibility? It is primarily because money is necessary to do this job and, unfortunately, the poorer provinces just do not have the money nor do they have the opportunity to raise it through taxation.
The hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) has pointed out some of the grants that are made to the provinces. We recognize and appreciate them, but let us not lose sight of the fact that the federal government alone has access to the growth fields of taxation. The federal government imposes income tax; that is a growth field of taxation because it grows as the incomes of the people grow. The federal government had the right to succession duties until it abandoned that right, whereas the provinces and the municipalities within the provinces are limited to personal and real property taxes. These are not real growth fields, as the amount of money that can be derived from them is very limited. Since the federal government has access to growth fields of taxation, it should be providing the poorer provinces with the money required to ensure their citizens an adequate standard of living. In my province the average annual per capital income is away below the national average, so it is impossible to raise through taxation, the amount of money required to provide, in many cases, even the essential services of government. The unemployment rate is the second highest of any province in Canada.
A study of capital investment within the province will indicate its poor financial situation. I do not have up to date figures, but those I have show that from 1966 to 1969 capital investment decreased. In 1966, new investment stood at $56.9 million; in 1967, it dropped to $45.5 million, almost 20 per cent; in 1968, it dropped again to $43.9 million, a 3 per cent drop and in 1969, it dropped by 12 per cent. This indicates a steady decrease in capital investment within the province. Our business establishments are small and 75 per cent of firms have sales of less than half a million dollars a year. Perhaps the most important aspect of all, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that many of our young people who are just entering the productive years of their lives are leaving the province because they cannot find jobs. When the province entered Confederation in 1873 the population was 97,000 and today, 99 years later, it

is 110,000. That is an increase of 13,000 people in 99 years or roughly 130 people per year.
Another very important fact is that of this population of 110,000, 13,347 or 17.93 per cent are 65 years of age and over and that is the highest percentage in any province in Canada. I may suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this group is beyond the productive years of their lives while young men and women are leaving in their most productive years. We rear and educate them at a cost of $23,000 per child. This is the figure issued by Statistics Canada. Just as they reach the age where they are able to contribute to the economy they have to leave for some other province or some other country in order to make a living. Our population is therefore, unfortunately, made up of a disproportionate percentage of the very young and the very old. We know that the very young and the very old, rather than contributing to the public treasury, are in some cases beneficiaries of government programs and are therefore drawing from the Treasury. This is one of the reasons we cannot raise sufficient money through the medium of taxation to provide our people with a reasonable standard of living.
I say that the gap between personal incomes earned in my province and those earned in Canada as a whole must be narrowed, and this can only be accomplished by the generation of income within my region. We must provide some means for generating income within the region itself. The logical way to do this, of course, is by bringing in industry. If industry is to settle in our province, it must be encouraged to do so by the federal government by way of subsidies and monetary assistance of that nature. Unfortunately, we are so situated that practically all the raw materials our industries require must be brought in at considerable cost. The finished product must be shipped out again at considerable cost. For that reason, industry in my province ordinarily has not been able to compete with industry located in the other parts of Canada where, possibly, raw material is available and from where the cost of shipping to the markets of the world is not as great as it is from my own province.
I know and appreciate that the federal government has given a considerable amount of assistance to my province through its famous development plan. That plan was traded for the construction of the causeway. It was originally planned that there would be a connecting link between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. This government saw fit to abandon that idea and it gave us in return its famous development plan. After careful analysis I can only conclude that the federal share of new money, and I am speaking about new money now, that is to be injected into the economy of our province by virtue of the plan is to be practically nil. The plan involves $725 million to be spent over a 15-year period. At least, the agreement calls for $725 million to be spent over a 15-year period. Of that $725 million, only $225 million is to be contributed by the government of Canada; that represents $225 million over a 15-year period, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that we should look at that $225 million, analyze what that money represents and see what is actually involved in this plan.
June 22, 1972

Of that $225 million, Mr. Speaker, $37 million is a loan from the federal government to the province, and that loan is repayable both as to principle and interest. That money must be deducted from the $225 million, which means that the federal government will be contributing $188 million. Prior to signing the agreement in 1968, Ottawa was contributing to the province by way of joint federal-provincial programs a total of $8.5 million per year. In any event, we would have obtained that $8.5 million a year. If Ottawa were to continue contributing $8.5 million per year, and presumably that contribution would have continued, then Ottawa, at the end of that time, would have contributed apart from the plan altogether 15 times $8.5 million, or $127.5 million. Mr. Speaker, that $127.5 million cannot be considered as new money, because it would have come to us in any event. We were getting those payments even before the plan was signed. So, from $188 million of new money we ought to deduct, I maintain, that $127.5 million. This reduces the federal government's contribution to $60.5 million.
We are told that approximately 400 people will be employed to administer the plan. Many of these have already been hired, at salaries ranging between $15,000 and $25,000 per year. Let us be conservative about the salaries these people will be paid and average those salaries at $10,000 per year. If 400 people are to be employed, according to the figures the government has given, and each of them will earn, say, $10,000 a year, over a 15-year period their salaries will amount to $60 million. So, we are actually reduced to $500,000 of new money that Ottawa will use in the implementation of the plan. The rest of the money, Mr. Speaker, is to be provided by the provincial government. I say very sincerely that the provincial government just will not be able to provide it. Where are we to get $500 million, the amount the province needs to put up if the plan is to be put into operation?
Today, our population stands at 110,000 people. The province's direct debt now is $110 million. That represents a direct debt of $1,000 for every man, woman and child residing in that province. Servicing this debt is costing us over $11 million per year. So, the first thing the provincial government must do, before implementing the development plan and before raising the $500 million it will need to raise, is pay $11 million to service the province's present debt. Mr. Speaker, our people just cannot afford to do this because, as I said before, opportunities for employment are not available to them. I seriously suggest if the government wants to do something truly beneficial for our province and other provinces which may be in a similar situation, it must encourage industry to come to our province and provide employment opportunities for our people. That is what we want, Mr. Speaker. If the federal government were to do this, it would be truly doing something to improve federal-provincial relations.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I consider it my duty to support today the motion which reads as follows:
That this House regrets the government's responsibility for the deterioration of federal-provincial relations as a result of its uncompromising attitudes and policies, its unilateral decisions
Federal-Provincial Relations
and its refusal to meet legitimate needs of Canadian provinces, mainly through not making available to them the funds required for development, economic expansion and welfare of the population.
Mr. Speaker, here is a motion that affects a basic problem and a great truth. Canadian federalism has suffered great setbacks under the government headed by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). As a matter of fact, since he came to power four years ago, this government has continually trampled on a number of principles, namely co-operation, good will, consultation, that are absolutely necessary to insure sound and dynamic relationships between the Canadian confederation partners.
For example, let us take the 21st of June to show how to what extent these relations have deteriorated. In fact it is a sad picture given to the public reading these newspapers. In Le Devoir's edition of June 21, it was stated:
"The longshoremen cannot expect anything from Cournoyer", said Mr. Trudeau.
What interest would the Prime Minister of Canada have in "belittling", accusing and besmirching a Quebec minister belonging to his own party? Are such ridiculous accusations liable to promote good relations? Certainly not.
What qualifications does the Prime Minister of Canada have that allow him to assess the qualifications of the provincial minister?
Moreover, Quebec is not the only target of such charges. Let us remember what the Premier of British Columbia said. I will refrain from repeating such coarse words, which are not likely to promote good relations between the partners in our Canadian Confederation.
In Montreal-Matin's edition of June 21, an article signed by Joseph Bourdon, and another one on a different subject by a Mr. Clement Brown, illustrate the problem brought on by an uncompromising policy and unilateral decisions which disregard priorities and the administration of the provinces.
The Montreal-Matin issue of the same date carried an article entitled: "Pour reprendre le debat constitutionnel, la position du Quebec devra etre claire." (In order to resume the constitutional debate, Quebec's position will have to be stated clearly). In the mind of the right hon. Prime Minister, a clear position means perhaps one entirely in agreement with what he says, if not no dialogue is possible.
Some may say that it is not so, but I will remind them of the many unsuccessful constitutional conferences and especially of the last one in Victoria, which amounted simply to an exchange of threats. Le Devoir of the 21st of June gives details of a report by the Canadian Committee of the International Conference on Welfare, in which it is stated plainly that Canada's welfare policy is confusing because there is no co-ordination between the different levels of government concerning their social security programmes.
Page one carries an article on social security entitled: Marchand seeks to induce Munro and Castonguay to resume dialogue.
Good for Mr. Marchand!
But who broke off the dialogue? How? Why? In what context.

June 22, 1972
Federal-Provincial Relations
The Prime Minister taxed Mr. Cournoyer with inefficiency and in the event of a dispute between him and his provincial opposite number, for the sake of cutting a good figure, another minister will be sent to mend the fences.
Mr. Speaker, that is a woeful picture. If such conflicts do exist, it is not because federalism is not practicable, but merely because it is being administered by petty politicians, intoxicated with power, financial or otherwise, who force their paltry views on the community, without consultation.
Briefly, Ottawa is a rich centralizer and the provinces, Quebec among them, are poor autonomists.
The conflict has become particularly intense over the past decade. And it is always waged on the financial field.
The federal government never says to the provinces that he wants to invade the fields that come under their jurisdiction: ownership, civil rights, education, social security. It said that it is was purely a financial matter or rather a fiscal matter for nowadays, the government and the treasury are almost synonymous in our country. But if you hold the purse-string, you control everything.
In this fight, Mr. Speaker, which divides unwitting federal centralists and blind provincial autonomists who is the winner? Doubtless it is the central government, especially for the past four years under the Trudeau administration which moreover takes its own decisions, be it in the fields of taxation, social security, budget policy, etc. without any consultations with the Canadian provinces.
The federal government never wins, but it keeps scoring. The autonomists, on the other hand, never yield, but still they keep losing ground. At all events, the gap is widening between those two levels of government; federalism is being questioned and this is unfortunate.
Anyhow, Mr. Speaker, Canadians are concerned over this situation and are losing confidence in these theories. They mistrust both systems because they also have to cope with a financial problem. The constitution, red carpet wrangling or flies are not what people are living on. What they want is to live in peace and security within a progressive social system.
Mr. Speaker, I ask this question: Why are the many constitutional conferences never getting us anywhere? The answer is quite simple: Ottawa, which is quite rich, arrives loaded with money, while provinces are short of cash. It is easy to discuss at a conference when one is rich and loaded with money, but one is necessarily short of cash when one is poor.
Indeed, successive invasions have enriched the invader and improverished the provinces and this resulted in huge regional disparities which divide Canada as a puzzle. And it is really a problem for the government. It has set up the Department of Regional Economic Expansion with a view to eliminating those disparities. However today, after having made attempts and spent hundreds of million for several months, we are still in the same predicament. The Prime Minister said so recently in Victoriaville as well as the Minister of Economic Regional Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand) in Sherbrooke.
The entire country, Mr. Speaker, should now be called a designated area. In short, everybody and all levels of

government are in debt and in a financial strait jacket. If it were untrue, there would not be any Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
The existence alone of such a department shows that there are financial problems at all levels of government from coast to coast.
Mr. Speaker, the provinces, the municipalities and the federal government-the great indebted and stubborn one, which is about to be crushed under its public debt- are held in check by that financial strait-jacket. That is why the federal government, like a monster, levies more and more taxes, further restricting provincial spending powers, which accounts for the financial unrest where the provinces find themselves. The Prime Minister of Canada himself, who is at the head of the most centralizing and most indebted government this country has known and who keeps on adding to his own arrogance by his die-hard attitude, is himself a victim of that strait-jacket.
What is the result of that? Mr. Trudeau-I say that because I firmly believe it-is the best ally of the enemies of Canada's unity and prosperity.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must remind the hon. member that whenever he is referring to a minister or to the Prime Minister, he must identify the latter by mentioning the official title instead of the person's name.


André-Gilles Fortin: I will not refer to that name anymore, Mr. Speaker, because I know it is a bad word for Canadians.
If they were rich, Quebec or the other provinces could approach the federal government or any interlocutor with a triumphal smile. It is in the field of artificial finance which is controlled by high finance, that centralization appears and develops. A people is born and can live where the financial field corresponds to facts. That is why we specifically blame this government for not having made available to the provinces enough credits to insure the development, economic growth and welfare of the people.
What is the basic problem in all provinces? Money! What is dealt with at all those federal-provincial or interprovincial conferences? The financial problem. What are we waiting for before checking the financial powers and having them serve the equal partners in Confederation?
In a word, we must suppress all causes of conflict in order to have Canada reach real social peace. Since the conflict lies at the taxation level, since it is through taxes that centralists get to their victims and create a situation that all provinces consider unacceptable, why not simply do away with that antiquated method the governments use to finance their administrations?
Instead of emptying the precariously lined purses of the citizens, why not simply draw credits from the huge production and resource potential of Canada?
I cannot build a road or a bridge, or implement this programme because Ottawa has monopolized all hands, materials and skills. Such a stupid statement is never heard, but people always say that such or such a province is delaying the implementation of such or such a project or programme because it has no money.
June 22, 1972

One never hears a shoe manufacturer say that he could not produce shoes because Ottawa or Quebec ate all available leather. However, the manufacturers say that they can no longer operate their plants because the products do not sell, because the citizens are short of money.
Therefore, let us give the federal government and the provinces the necessary power to finance themselves by means of new credits bases on the real Canadian production, in accordance with the needs of the Canadian peoplej whatever their language or their geographical location. This is the only solution. Why not leave Ottawa, Quebec and all other provinces carry out their administration within a clever system where cooperation and dialogue will replace arrogance and imposed muteness, and instruct the production system to provide the things that fall within their competence?
Unless we simply wish to see Canada destroyed some day we will indeed have to accept that solution. One of these days the partners in Confederation will have to get together and discuss their problems, that is their financial problems, instead of always hiding and by-passing it.
It will indeed be necessary for our leaders, at all levels, to decide jointly to surrender Canada to Canadians, in the mutual respect of their interests.
It will indeed be necessary for our leaders to find financial solutions to their financial problems, for they cannot go on indefinitely as they are doing now. There is a limit which cannot be exceeded: the taxpayers' ability to pay.
Mr. Speaker, there is no solution other than the interest-free financing formula as advocated by the Social Credit Party of Canada for dealing with the problem of government financing.
In any event, there is a limit to arrogance, and indeed exploitation. When there no longer is any dialogue, there is obviously a danger of rupture. Positive action becomes imperative.
Mr. Speaker, I would naturally have many more things to say but my time is limited. If we had a creditiste government in Ottawa, they would see to it that there be a balance between the issues of money or credit and the goods that exist to meet the needs. Instead of using these credit issues, they would distribute them in one lump sum to the provincial governments on the basis of their respective population leaving them free to spend them as they see fit within their own jurisdictions, according to their respective priorities.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we will soon have that creditiste government!


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, some time ago I saw an amusing cartoon showing a man in a rocking chair looking at television and his wife tapping him on the shoulder, saying "Have you recovered enough from the seven o'clock news to listen to the eleven o'clock news?"
From listening to the speeches of our friends here in the House and outside the House, you would think we are living in an unthinkable country where there is no progress, where things are worse today than they ever were. Really, it would seem to be economic and social slavery. To hear them, the situation is really tragic. They are what
Federal-Provincial Relations
I call professional scarecrows, whose only function is frightening others, convinced that in so doing they are attracting them.


Georges-J. Valade: Cournoyer, Bourassa and Castonguay?


Jean Marchand: Yes.
Problems are systematically created, and minor incidents blown up to cause unrest.
In a sound federalist system, Mr. Speaker, there definitely is friction between the different parties. That does not apply only to the Canadian confederation. I was involved in a union movement before coming to the House and there was friction between unions and central councils, between central councils and federations, between federations and the confederation. There was conflict between men, just as there is between municipalities and provincial governments. In all systems, however close-knit, there is always that kind of friction.
The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) is shocked because the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) made a slight dig at the Minister of Labour of Quebec who had meddled in a problem which did not come under his jurisdiction. As Minister of Labour, he could very well have communicated with us, saying: "Listen, we in Quebec are concerned."
We are also Quebecers, Mr. Speaker, and the situation in the ports of Montreal, Quebec and Trois-Rivieres, concerns me as it does my colleagues. However, had we made the least untimely remark, the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) would have risen and said: By what right does the federal government interfere with the provincial jurisdiction? In my opinion, these are small incidents and to magnify them to such an extent is simply an attempt to cause a useless uneasiness.
In any case, Mr. Speaker, conditions are improving. They are not ideal, of course, but efforts are made every day to correct them. The government that will replace us-if this ever happens-will also try to improve the situation which, however, will never be perfect.
A resolution is dramatically introduced to the effect that federal-provincial relations are deteriorating, that the provinces are slowly dying, that they are exploited, that the federal government centralizes and monopolizes everything while the provinces have nothing. Where is the truth? The truth is that in 1948, I believe, the province of Quebec budget was $180 million as compared with $4 billion today. The Social Credit members who are always talking about the importance of money never mention constitutional problems. They talk only of tax problems, of money and gold. Well, since they keep talking about money problems, here is an eloquent case: A province whose budget was $180 million has one now that reaches $4 billion. On what authority can we conclude that it has less influence now than before?


Henry P. Latulippe: The cost of living has been rising.

June 22, 1972
Federal-Provincial Relations


Jean Marchand: Of course, the cost of living has increased 30 times since 1948.
What happened to the federal budget during the same period? It has gone up from $4 billion to $12 billion-that is a fourfold increase-while the provincial budget has increased 25 or 30 times.
Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting that problems do not exist, but I wonder for what reason people go to such lengths in order to create problems where there are none. Provinces are financially sounder than they ever were. One can do far more with $4 billion than with $180 million, even though the hon. member suggested a moment ago that the cost of living has increased.
I am willing to compare Quebec's financial situation today with what it was in 1948 and it will be realized that this province is far richer than it was. However, this does not mean that is has too much money.


An hon. Member:: It has too little.


Jean Marchand: Of course, it has too little, and so have we. We should very much like to have more money. We could for instance implement guaranteed annual income.
Mr. Speaker, I love my province as much as those who criticize us and tell us: How mean you are! Why don't you give it more? It is as if the government of Quebec were not a full-fledged government which is autonomous within its jurisdiction and has the right to impose taxes in order to collect the needed revenues.


Henry P. Latulippe: Why do the unions-


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand; in any case, this question should be addressed to the unions and not to me.
I am only replying to the main argument which states that the important thing is money. Let us give money to the provinces and the problems will disappear. We shall print and distribute the money. Production will be balanced, goods will be consumed and Confederation will work out!
We point out the facts and of course we receive no answer. We are told that the purchasing power must definitely be equal to the national production. And yet I do not know what they do with the newsprint which is sold outside when the market is stagnant. We shall have to go and give money to those people so that they can buy our newsprint. Otherwise, we will never succeed.
Mr. Speaker, the present government is accused of being centralist, not to care for the provinces. I shall give some very simple examples and I shall cite facts. I shall not deliver a speech that scares people.
For example, let's take the case of my department: this is a very simple one. Do you know how many agreements we settled with the provinces? We settled 45 agreements. These are formal agreements, conventions which are under my department's jurisdiction. Nothing is being made without consulting the provinces.
For all the "special areas", considerable amounts-


Mr. Orlikow:: Or a dictatorship.


Jean Marchand: If you have any facts to put before the House, then give those facts-but just facts. And stop screaming just because you don't like the facts.

Obviously, these 45 agreements have been negotiated.
For sure, we would not say: Ask for anything you want, we are going to bargain. If, for instance, a provincial government happens to decide that a road is needed to get to some friend's summer camp, our answer would be no; but in the matters under its jurisdiction, we would never implement anything without first asking the province for its consent.
I have here a list of the agreements entered into under ARDA. As the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) should know, we just signed one with Quebec and the other provinces. We came to an agreement with the Quebec government and we are going to contribute our full share.
In Quebec City, a "special area" has been designated some time ago. We have solved a good many problems without any trouble and the same thing happened in The Pas, following an agreement with the province of Manitoba. Everything went on very smoothly, and those same communities in which unemployment previously ran as high as 30 per cent, are today experiencing a shortage of manpower and workers are coming from other areas.
The same applies to ARDA, to the FRED programme for example, in the Gaspe area, where agreements are reached not only with Quebec but also with private associations. It is the same thing in New Brunswick, where we are about to negociate an agreement with respect to the northeastern area. Then, what is this business about taxation and centralization by the federal government? On the contrary, we are always trying to decentralize.
If the honourable member read a little, if he were better informed, then he would make better speeches. He says for instance that the constitutional conference was a failure because it was a matter of money. I should like to mention to the hon. member that I was in Victoria and that if it was a failure it was not for reasons of money but of jurisdiction in the field of family allowances. If you want to bring out the matter of money, then money do it always in the same manner, otherwise it is ridiculous.
Therefore, there are not only problems of money but also of jurisdiction. Immediately following the Victoria conference, we entered into negotiations with Quebec and the other provinces. Clearly hon. members opposite are not aware of this, and besides, they are not interested. In fact, it is much more simple to speak about distributing money but we have actively negotiated at the official level and the departmental level with a view to finding a formula agreeable to both parties, because the country should be taken as it is.
How is it that social security has been centralized in Ottawa? It is because the provinces have made no progress in this field.


Henry P. Latulippe: They had no money!
June 22, 1972


Jean Marchand: Perhaps they had no money! They only had to raise taxes!


Henry P. Latulippe: But they had no money!


Jean Marchand: They only had to raise taxes. Anyway, that is what happened.
In 1927 perhaps Mr. Taschereau might have raised taxes and granted old age security pensions. But there was a problem: Quebec did not want to be the only province paying those pensions since it would have been placed in a situation of economic inferiority.
When a problem arises we try to reconcile jurisdictions and reach and agreement on many issues. Obviously disagreements will arise. And of course each time this happens the doom and gloom prophets start spreading the word that the country is about to fall apart and that Ottawa is arrogant. What I say is true because it is published everywhere.
Who is mentioning the 45 agreements we have negotiated with the provinces and which are operating perfectly well? Who mentions them? I never heard the social credit members voice their approval. They do not mention them at all but they say: You are doing nothing since there is no money for the provinces.
I will quote a few examples. First, we have negotiated special agreements which provided the provinces with $108 million in 1970-71; $85 million in 1971-72 and $120 million in 1972-73.
We also entered into agreements concerning road and highway construction, for which we gave four grants of $14 million, $31 million, $36 million, and $37 million respectively. Under the FRED agreement, we granted $22 million, $36 million, $54 million, and $67 million. Under the ARDA program, we granted $25 million, $20 million, $16 million, and $39 million successively. The total of grants made, which was $63 million in 1969-70, rose to $264 million, and the department for which I am responsible, which had a budget of some $100 million only four years ago, will soon have one of $500 million.
This may not be enough, but let not people come and say that nothing is done, that the federal government is not concerned with the problems of underdeveloped areas. Maybe we should do more, and ask the wealthier provinces for more, but let nobody say that no serious effort is made, everyday, in order to try and ensure a better balance in this country's economy.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would also like people to learn the meaning of words. When people talk about eliminating regional disparities, this is a bit of an exaggeration, as the objective has never been to eliminate them, but rather to lessen them so that life may be tolerable in all areas of Canada.
Some people may prefer to live in Prince Edward Island, in Newfoundland, or in Nova Scotia, at the Strait of Canso, rather than live in Montreal or Toronto. This is feasible, provided those people have enough to live there, and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion certainly does not aim at having people in the Strait of Canso or in Newfoundland earn as much as people in
Federal-Provincial Relations
Toronto. We know this would be neither logical nor feasible. But we want those people, if they decide to live in Prince Edward Island, in Newfoundland, in Nova Scotia, or in New Brunswick, to be able to earn a decent living.
There will always be disparities. Why do people come and say to us: You said you would eliminate disparities but there are more now than ever. This is the main criticism levelled at us. I shall reply in this way but where are they? They do not even bother to provide figures. They should get some information and quote, for such and such region, the unemployment rate compared to the average rate in Canada, stating that it has increased. But those who criticize us cannot provide any figures, even though we pay them a certain amount for their research. If they did some research, they could make speeches which are more than just demagogic exploitation.
Certainly there are problems. There are serious problems in the Lac Saint-Jean area, where the sponsor of this motion comes from. This area has been designated as a "special area", in an effort to attract some business to get established there, and I hope that one of these days our efforts will be successful.


An hon. Member:: They want to designate the whole country.


Jean Marchand: You see, they talk nonsense. To designate the whole country would of course mean to eliminate everything, for everyone would be on an equal footing, whereas now, a few achievements are still made, even though they are not mentioned very often.
The mayor of St. John's came into my office the other day. He wanted me to go to St. John's because the citizens were so happy about the achievements of my department that they would like to welcome me in their city, and I shall go there. By the way, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) was there.
Now, the hon. member for Lotbiniere,-who is smiling because that is probably the only thing he can do-whose riding is not far from Quebec City, will go and see what has been done there, in Place Royale and about Saint-Charles River. He will go and see our achievements as regards water sewage, and parking problem, as well as in the area of tourism. He will go and see as well what we did in the seminary of Quebec City. Just open your eyes and look, and then you may wonder what you could do in our place.
Mr. Speaker, since I am in the government, I expect to be criticized, to make mistakes, which is normal. And I believe that it is the role of the opposition to indicate the mistakes, the weaknesses, to propose new solutions.
The other day, I read in Le Droit the report of an interview given by the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). He was speaking about the relations between the provinces and Ottawa. He thought the Prime Minister was much too rigid, much too inflexible and said: Naturally, there are things which will need to be arranged. It is necessary for us to get together. Obviously everything cannot be given up. But on the whole, I would wish there would be a compromise.
You read that and say: What has he proposed? Nothing at all. He simply said that the Prime Minister was inflex-
3400

June 22, 1972
Federal-Provincial Relations ible. Quite the contrary, he is very flexible. It is only necessary to realize the evolution of the discussions, the constitutional debates, to see to what extent the federal government went in order to reach agreements with the provinces.
So, Mr. Speaker, the fields in which there are agreements with the provinces are really many. In spite of all that is said, the provinces are growing stronger and richer, and the same goes for the Canadian people. That does not mean that all is perfect, that there is no unemployment. It is generally known that some go to remote rural areas where they spread rumours: I know, because I have been there after them.
Some people say: in my time, butter cost 25 cents a pount, I myself have known those conditions. We froze in winter, and had to break the ice in the morning to be able to wash up a bit; at night time, we used coal oil lamps. I am sorry, I cannot agree, as I must say that life is now considerably more pleasant than it was 50 years ago. The unemployed suffer less; our welfare system, although not perfect, is obviously superior to the one we had at that time. People are not driven to public begging as they used to be, which does not mean that there is no more destitution, but it is not as serious as the professional scarecrows would like to make us believe.
The motion deals with federal-provincial relations. If we continue to act as we have so far, I am convinced that our federation will operate very well. There will be some conflicts among individuals, whichever federal government is in power. Indeed, some people always interfere with other people's business, but they are told to remain quiet. It is not tragic!
If we had to note all the silly things which are said especially in the province of Quebec by those who protest most strongly, namely the movers of that resolution, we would be surprised! Some people will say: We cannot live side by side, we will go at each other's throat. If we are looking for a speeches stuffed with viciousness and aggressivity, we have only to refer to those delivered by members of the Social Credit Party. Indeed they are the ones who are saying: Dear me, the Prime Minister is so rude; he has been a little rough with the provinces.
Come now, Mr. Speaker, let us be a little more responsible: he is just a man and as such he may knock things over, sometimes.
But on the whole, the provinces can stand on their own two feet. Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec can to stand on their own feet. Hitches are liable to occur, but experience shows that we are civilized enough to live side by side, to pursue common goals and turn our country, not into a paradise, but into the happy place which Social Crediters would never even think of leaving.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I was particularly anxious to take part in today's debate on the motion introduced by the Social Credit Party. This motion, as the minister put it, is not entirely right, but it does enable several members to show both sides of the story.
The spokesmen for the party which has moved the motion have applied themselves to saying that this gov-

eminent has not done anything. It is truly stupid to state that someone does not do anything. You either do well or badly, but you do something. So, to say that they have made no efforts and assert, for instance, that the situation is worse than it was 30 years ago is hard to believe.
I was very much interested by the remarks of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand), who spoke about various agreements reached with the co-operation of the provinces and which are directly related to his department. In that respect, one has nevertheless to admit, objectively, that such agreements have had interesting and beneficial effects on the other provinces and not only on Quebec which had its share, and for that I am glad.
In other areas, the government has also concluded agreements, implemented programs, or handed out to the provinces considerable amounts of money which enabled them to carry out various projects.
These efforts are by no means sufficient. But to say that nothing has been done is hard to justify. In my opinion, the government should be required to do more, and reminded that they must not limit themselves to what has been achieved these past four years. I admit generally that efforts have been made but that it is still not enough.
This motion which nevertheless I think is interesting because it gives us a chance to express our views, brings us back to a very popular topic, namely federal-provincial relations.
It is clear that in the beginning, the Constitution which is directly related to these relationships, was certainly valuable. All hon. members admit that at that time it was apparently an interesting solution. Since then, it has been amended several times. We must recognize that in the last 100 years, some provinces have made greater progress than others depending on circumstances. This is a fact that always prompts the federal government to analyze the feasibility of amending the Constitution periodically, taking into account the changes that occur in every province. Progress having been greater in some provinces than in others, those provinces became stronger and asked for certain powers that others do not want at this time.
There are different viewpoints all across this country. We should acknowledge that Quebec has been recognized as the home of the French-Canadian nation, a fact which differentiates this province markedly from the others.
We are dealing with federal-provincial relations. I was listening to the minister of Regional Economic Expansion who particularly urged hon. members to make an effort and tell the truth. He was perfectly right.
I admit my special interest in the Quebec problem, just as other hon. members will be inclined to describe the problems and achievements of the provinces they represent.
With regard to federal-provincial relations, I must say that every member would benefit from reading over again the briefs submitted in the last ten years to the federal-provincial conferences.
Instead of suggesting that these federal-provincial conferences are not so meaningful, I think that they should be more frequent because, in my opinion, this is how the
June 22, 1972

premiers of the provinces will get to know each other better and will accept more readily some changes suggested by the federal government.
But, with regard to Quebec-must we repeat it a thousand times-in the briefs submitted by four different governments, the same consistent thinking appears with the request for transfer of certain powers made the federal government.
As a Quebecer, I recognize that my first duty is to answer the requests made by the government of my province. I think that these justifiable requests of Quebec would not adversely affect the building of our country, Canada.
Of course, the reluctance shown by federal governments-and I am not indicting only this government- about the requests made by some provinces, Quebec especially-in view of its particularities-has produced, whether you like or not, an independentist party in Quebec.
These things must be said. I mention them because I think that it is important that all hon. members be well informed about Quebec.
It has been said over again that the Parti Quebecois only had 7 members elected, but it is giving improper information to the House when you limit yourself to such a statement.
I believe that we should not conceal the truth but openly say that this party has nevertheless won 23 per cent of the popular vote in Quebec in the last election. And that percentage was increased on the occasion of two by-elections a few months later.
To claim that the Parti Quebecois in Quebec is unimportant is to be dishonest. To admit that that party could become the official opposition if there is reluctance in meeting certain demands from Quebec, I believe is conceivable.
But such a drive can be slowed down. We should seriously consider the possibility of responding in a positive way to the requests of the present Quebec government, which are the same as those expressed by the three previous provincial governments.
I should like special consideration to be given to the requests from the Quebec minister of Social Affairs who spent ten years devising a plan geared to the future of Quebeckers in a Canadian context. As Quebec representatives, it is our duty to see to it that the Federal government accepts to grant the powers Quebec claims because the Quebeckers future will be conditioned by them.
I was surprised to learn recently that the Federal-Provincial affairs Secretariat had been abolished. As if those federal or provincial problems did not exist anymore. We need a permanent secretariat more and more if those negotiations are to be permanent also. How can federal-provincial relations be improved if we deprive ourselves of a somewhat experienced body that allowed us to maintain regular relations?
Not long ago, Mr. Chairman, considering the present circumstances where certain assertions can be heard either in Quebec or in Ottawa, I had hoped for regular meetings to take place between both groups of Quebec members at the federal as well as the provincial level.
Federal-Provincial Relations
I realize that this suggestion was ratified right away by the Quebec Chamber of Commerce which in a resolution, asked Mr. Bourassa to set up consulting machinery in order to prevent statements such as those which we have heard recently, from causing clashes and engendering a climate where bargaining would become more and more difficult. And I also realize that the Quebec premier yesterday replied positively to the resolution to the effect that it is essential to increase machinery for consultation with Ottawa in order to avoid useless tensions within federalism. For the last three weeks, we have heard such statements, an undeniable proof that some concern exists about the present federalism.
Instead of condemning federalism and being satisfied with criticizing without providing any solution, I should rather urge hon. members to earnestly consider those problems and try to cooperate in finding consulting machinery that would alleviate such clashes and in due course help Quebec members in this House as well as in the Quebec legislature recognize their respective responsibilities and cooperate with a view to ensure that the province of Quebec has a fair, valid and worthwhile representation, which, finally, would benefit the whole country.
Mr. Speaker, I do hope that this debate on federal-provincial relations will result in positive suggestions for the good of all Canadian people.
I note that it is six o'clock and, since my time has not expired, I shall resume my remarks at eight o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the economic problems have priority everywhere in this country.
The motion we are now studying deals with federal-provincial matters and is closely related to these problems. We talk about regional disparities and we try through every means to eliminate them. I also acknowledge that the problem of economic stability is the most important issue if we look at it from the international point of view.
Perhaps we should remember that in the present economic situation, we should not forget that in the province of Quebec the economic problems are very important and of a constitutional nature.
As far as the people of Quebec are concerned, it is impossible not to give very serious consideration to constitutional problems and difficulties. It does not mean that people in Quebec do not wish for economic stability enabling them to have as high a standard of living as anywhere else, but in view of the objectives of the population, we must also consider constitutional changes. This particular situation is not looked upon in the same way by
3402

June 22, 1972
Federal-Provincial Relations other provinces for other reasons and this is clearly understandable, as we admitted for that matter.
This does not mean that in the last four years Quebec has not received considerable amounts of money under agreements with Ottawa, for the implementation of costsharing programs. In my opinion, Quebec has received its share in the last four years. It has received interesting amounts of money, but that is not enough, and I do not believe that mere hand-outs of money would meet the expectations of the province of Quebec.
I would like to call your attention especially on those federal-provincial relations directly connected with constitutional matters, for I know perfectly well that Quebec is after major amendments, namely that certain powers be given back to her. Just how much power is the federal government prepared to yield? I also know that some other provinces have indicated and given notice to Ottawa of their intention of asking that some powers, perhaps not at all the same ones and for reasons different from ours, be handed back to them.
I think it is very important that we give special consideration to those claims. I said it before, there is a special situation existing in Quebec where people are losing confidence in federalism as we have it today. I am not suggesting that the majority of the people in Quebec have no more faith in our kind of federalism; that is not what I meant. But I think that a large percentage should make us consider seriously the possibility of transferring some powers to the province of Quebec and answering favourably the requests made during federal provincial conferences.
I bring this problem before the House because I feel it is extremely important. It does seem that the premier of Quebec has recently confirmed his intention of resuming negociations. It seem obvious that, as far as Quebec is concerned, this is an urgent issue and it would be a serious mistake to deal with it simply by offering money.
The reason for this is a particular situation, a people who, for very valid reasons wishes to obtain certain constitutional guarantees.
However I must admit, as I said earlier that certain amounts of money have been paid to Quebec in the last four years, which pleases me greatly. In fact on several occasions, I have had the opportunity to support programs which enabled Quebec to get that money, but once again I am sorry that there has not been more constitutional progress.
And the poor achievements in the field of constitution-nal amendments have generated a good deal of concern in Quebec and allowed a party advocating secession of the province to progress in spite of what is being said.
I believe that the government's reluctance on the subject of constitutionnal amendments are concerned has been a great help to a party which wants the province to separate.
On the other hand, I am convinced that had the federal government reacted more favourably to the minimum requests made by some ministers during the past few years, the province of Quebec would have had evidence that it is possible in this great country, to be considered as

one of the founding nations and be assured of an existence in keeping with its aspirations and wishes.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding my remarks, I would like this House to seriously ponder over what I have said about federal-provincial relations. I believe it is still possible for the province of Quebec to hold an interesting position in Canada but we should put an end to this current procrastinating.
I believe that unanimous agreement will develop among our French-speaking members whose duty it is to keep the country informed about Quebec problems, about the requests that have been coming from this province during the last ten years, and to explain the reasons they should be dealt with favourably. In so doing, I am under the clear impression that we will meet the wishes of a province without hurting the others.


Mr. Andre Ouellet (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the Social Credit Party today blames the federal government for the deterioration of federal-provincial relations.
That judgment seems to me much too hasty and summary, for it simply is the echo of a whole series of statements by Quebeckers who want at any rate the federal-provincial relations to be bad.
There are in this respect prejudices and myths which of necessity must be destroyed. I think that the Creditistes are falling into the trap by presenting that motion today.
It is false to suggest that this govrnment is centralizing more than any other preceding government, but I think that that is exactly what the separatists would nevertheless lead us to believe.
I would not have been surprised to hear the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) take part in the debate. I was not surprised either to see the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) who, like the hon. member for Champlain shows certain separatist tendencies, intervene in this debate. But I have been really disappointed to hear the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier), who seems to me a serious and level-headed man, move such a motion.
One wonders who is to blame if federal-provincial relations are not as good as we would wish them to be. I have always thought that there were two sides to the medal and I am amazed to note that the Social Credit party of Canada, which is a federalist party, does not realize at all that a host of factors constantly complicate matters and are perhaps, more than the federal government, at the cause of the deterioration of federal-provincial relations.
First, we should not forget that Messrs. Jacques Pari-zeau and Claude Morin have been advising the government of Quebec for the last few years and have taken an active part in various constitutional conferences. These men are today members of the Parti Quebecois and they openly advocate Quebec's independence. They have ceased to be public servants because they have realized they would not, in their official capacity, attain their objective, that is Quebec's independence. In other words, I do not think that Messrs. Parizeau and Morin have turned
June 22, 1972

separatists because negotiations between Quebec and Ottawa have worn thin. I believe they were separatists even before these negotiations had started. They have spread confusion all along during the negotiations and, as far as they are concerned, successful negotiations necessarily meant that they should snatch away the whole bite from Ottawa.
Reference was made this afternoon, and the papers have also repeatedly taken up the subject, of a social file that has remained unchanged under the last four provincial parliaments. But let us realize one thing: that this social file of Quebec has been prepared by Mr. Morin himself. Of course, he has always put this file forward at every constitutional conference he has attended.
That is why the picture remains unchanged.
Yet I believe they are forgetting an important aspect of the problem. The situation has changed over the years as a result of agreements apt to be forgotten. For instance, the problem of adult education has been dealt with. The famous problem of universities was also settled in 1966. The situation therefore has changed and it is misleading to claim that it has not.
In the second place, I should like to say that deterioration of federal-provincial relations also takes the form of sensational statements made by some provincial ministers. Of course, some politicians here in Ottawa are guilty of the same. But they do not have the monopoly. How often, over the past years, have we seen provincial politicians, Quebec politicians, unable to resist the temptation of making sensational statements to hit the headlines every time they were confronted with a microphone or a television camera.
In the third place, it should also be said that journalists, whether eager for sensationalism or fanatics of independence for Quebec, have left no stone unturned to blow up any conflicts arising between the federal government and the provinces. In certain quarters, it has come to the point of believing one acquires importance by ranting at Ottawa. That is how Quebec Minister of Agriculture Nor-mand Toupin, according to some journalists, became overnight one of the major ministers of the Bourassa cabinet, just for having attacked the federal government.
Mr. Speaker, I know some excellent Quebec ministers who play, within their departments and respective fields, an extremely important role and yet who do not make headlines in the newspapers. I consider them important ministers in Mr. Bourassa's cabinet, even though they do not give hell to Ottawa, even though the separatist parliamentary reporters at the national assembly overlook them in their articles.
Fourthly, we must not forget, when we speak of federal-provincial relations, that one of the main causes of their deterioration is the activity of the Parti Quebecois which make unending efforts to bring the people to believe that everything is going badly. It reminds me of the wellknown French saying according to which lies always leave a trace.
Fifthly, I am also thinking of those wet blankets, Francois-Albert Angers and Jacques-Yvan Morin who for over a year have been carrying on an underhand fight in university circles and the media to make us believe that
Federal-Provincial Relations
we have come to a complete deadlock as far as federal-provincial relations are concerned. Jacques-Yvan Morin is so obsessed by the idea that he has written a book on the Victoria charter saying that it was absolutely essential that Ottawa should not bring out again that famous charter, which would be awful.
Those are, Mr. Speaker, five essential factors which must be taken into account when the record of federal-provincial relations is analyzed. It is unfair to blame this government as being responsible for the deterioration of federal-provincial relations. If it is responsible, you may be sure that it is not the only culprit.
The motion introduced today by the Social Credit states that the federal-provincial relations have deteriorated, especially as a result of the uncompromising attitudes and policies of the federal government. Let us give this a closer look.
First, it is wrong to claim that the Prime Minister is inflexible in the constitutional field. No Canadian Prime Minister has taken the constitutional reform more seriously than he does. Let us remember what has happened. This started with a meeting proposed by the Premiers of Quebec and Ontario, Messrs. Johnson and Robarts, who decided to open the constitutional case. A beautiful conference, full of nice speeches, was therefore held in Toronto.
I suggest, though, that it was the federal government which afterward worked hardest in order to achieve all the original objectives. This government has published, between 1968 and 1970, a series of nine documents covering all the aspects of the constitutional review. In these papers, it clearly stated its position; it stated publicly- what many other governments have not done-what powers it meant to keep as well as the reasons why it wanted to keep them. Neither did he fear to state publicly that he was ready for concessions and to say in which fields he was willing to make them. This is certainly not inflexibility, quite the contrary.
Must I remind hon. members and particularly those of the Social Credit party that despite everything that was said, the Victoria charter had been drafted to accommodate the provinces, Quebec especially. This charter did not intend to give any additional power to the federal government. On the contrary, the federal government had its powers restricted.
As for inflexibility it is mainly displayed by those who think that Ottawa must definitely say yes to all Quebec proposals, otherwise it does not understand anything. And these same persons think that Quebec must flatly refuse all Ottawa proposals, otherwise it disgraces itself and betrays Quebecers.
Do the people who want Ottawa to always agree Quebec also believe that Ottawa should always 'comply with the requests of the other provinces, particularly when the government of British Columbia asks the federal government to stop its equalization payments?
Mr. Speaker, there is another factor affecting the Province of Quebec especially to which I should like to refer. This is the intransigent attitude adopted several months

June 22, 1972
Federal-Provincial Relations ago by the newspaper Le Devoir and more particularly by its publisher Mr. Claude Ryan. I have much respect for this man who is certainly one of the most educated minds among Quebec journalists but I do not think that he is fulfilling his role as neutral observer and an enlightened advisor. I do not think that this thinking newspaper is presently playing the role that it could in the Province of Quebec. In my view, this newspaper and its publisher have definitely and deliberately joined the group of those who think that Ottawa is set on saying no to Quebec. They systematically omit to see the federal government's attempts at conciliation for what they are worth, and they even completely ignore any concessions that Ottawa may have made.
Since I am led to mention Mr. Claude Ryan in this House again, I would like to take this opportunity to say that I may have spoken too harshly about him before, during the October 1970 crisis. I think he found himself at that time at the centre of a regrettable controversy which did not do him justice. I hope that my remarks of today will open his eyes and make him realize that there may be people in Ottawa who are not as intransigent as he thinks. I simply ask him to be a little less intransigent himself, and to consider and recognize that this government has shown great flexibility in its negotiations with the province of Quebec in several areas in which observers had said it would be impossible to come to an agreement.
I am thinking particularly of agreements entered into with Quebec concerning international conferences, immigration, and the development plan for the National Capital area, which includes Hull. In other sectors, particularly those of farm products marketing and of taxation, the government invited the provinces to make any suggestions which they thought useful, and later made numerous and substantial amendments in each case, taking their views into account.
I therefore ask Mr. Ryan and all other Quebecers who have some respect for the Canadian experience to reconsider the offer which the Prime Minister made to his counterpart in Quebec in his letter of March 9 last concerning family allowances. This offer represents a major initiative in the field of federal-provincial relations. For the first time, it will be possible for a program established, financed and administered by the federal government to be changed by the law of a province, even if the latter's financial contribution is minimal compared with that of the federal government. This solution provides the provinces with the right to amend the federal plan to meet their individual requirements. It also enables provinces to implement built-in family allowance systems, without disregard for national standards and without jeopardizing the federal function of redistribution. Thus, the citizens' fundamental interests and those of the two levels of government are served this way.
I would also like to see greater interest in the Prime Minister's offer that the principles governing an arrangement over family allowances be extended to other social programs within the framework of a constitutional agreement.
If such principles were entrenched in a new Constitution, Quebec would be provided with the guarantee it is seeking. It is unfortunate and indeed regrettable that the

Quebec Government has not as yet given a positive answer to the suggestion made by the Prime Minister of Canada.
Let us consider that suggestion a little more closely. Let the Social Credit Party consider this suggestion more closely. They will then realize that the federal government is far from being inflexible. Let us examine together, for a few minutes, all the concessions and changes made in respect of the federal Family Allowances Act and we will realize that the federal government has shown a great deal of flexibility in its dealings with the Quebec claims.
Quebec said: provincial legislation should have precedence in matters of social policy; the choice given to the provinces, according to the federal bill, will enable them to revamp the system so it will comply with the social priorities of the provinces.
Quebec said: the provinces should control the development of social policy, if not its administration. The choice given the provinces enables them to adjust the system to their own social policies.
Quebec said: the Constitution should provide a permanent guarantee of provincial priority in the field of social policy. The letter forwarded to Mr. Bourassa shows that we are ready to include such guarantees in a revised constitution.
Quebec said: the benefits provided for in the plan and the minimum income should escalate with the increase in prices and wages. The federal bill provides for the periodical readjustment of the maximums and the benefits, by means of Orders in Council, in keeping with the changes in price and wage levels.
Thus, some fifteen suggestions have been made which have been dealt with by the federal government.
Mr. Speaker, these are some instances which clearly show that we are not as inflexible as some people would have us. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to say that federal-provincial relations could be improved. I think they could be better and that it is possible, amongst men of good will, to agree and, in particular, to find a solution to the Quebec problem.
I am in complete agreement with Mr. Castonguay when he says:
"The coherences needed to govern Quebec are not inconsistent with the coherences required to govern Canada."
When Mr. Castonguay says:
We fight for the right to establish our own priorities-
I reply: "You are right, and the federal government, far from refusing to recognize your claims, is ready to entertain them. Therefore, let us try to agree. This is what the people of Quebec, in particular, want and this is what the federal government is ready to do to better serve the citizens we represent at our respective levels."


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in support of the motion which was introduced in the House today in order to call our attention to the problems which exist in federal-provincial relations, namely the trouble we have to agree on constitutional matters.
June 22, 1972

It gives me great pleasure to have the floor after having heard the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) standing up for his government by saying that it is not being obstinate, that everything is rosy and that we have in the prime minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) the most flexible man in the world.
Mr. Speaker, if this government is so flexible, how do you explain the stiffness of the press release following the constitutional conference held in Victoria on June 14 and 16, 1971?
I would like to refer the House to paragraph 2 of the conclusions which appeared in release jointly published and which probably came from the thinkers on constitutional matters of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I quote paragraph 2:
If the Charter that must be considered as a whole is accepted and that this fact is made known to the secretary of the constitutional conference on Monday June 28th 1971 at the latest, governments will recommend the Charter to their legislatures and, in the case of the federal government, to both Houses of the Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, we had said that the provincial government has been given exactly 11 days to submit all of the foreseen constitutional amendments which included the formula itself and we told the provinces: "This is the subtlety and flexibility of the Prime Minister". It is that subtlety and flexibility that the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) has just told us about.
The Prime Minister of Canada and his team told the provinces that they were giving them a mere 11 days to accept definitely a charter which would bind them all to conditions that they could not accept at that time. They needed time to try and decipher this whole muddle contained in the conditions discussed at the constitutional conference.
If this is what the hon. member for Papineau calls flexibility, I tell him that he cannot read and that he easily confuses flexibility with rigidity and arrogance.
Mr. Speaker, the main reason why the Victoria conference was a failure is that the provincial governments were denied the time to assess and give mature deliberation to the terms of the proposals made at this conference. I say that under these circumstances, it was certainly not flexibility or comprehension but rather arrogance and rigidity, which have led to the confrontation which we are now facing.
Mr. Speaker, the motion now before us not only deserves the support of hon. members but also of the whole population.
Its terms are wide enough in scope that they can encompass a wide range of opinions. This is why the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) engaged in a flight of oratory that was far more emotional than responsible. For 20 minutes, he beat his chest like a buddha and congratulated himself for his so-called administrative achievements, since no one else would do it for him. And like Archimedes he exclaimed, Eureka, I have discovered the principle of the lever. As if the minister had just discovered electric light!
Federal-Provincial Relations
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Regional Economic Expansion has attempted to persuade us this afternoon of the favours he has done to designated areas by giving millions of dollars. He has obviously omitted to say that these hundreds of millions come from the taxpayer's pocket and not from the present government, and that moreover, these grants became necessary because of the irresponsible economic policies of his government which brought about an unprecedented level of unemployment in the designated areas.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the minister's argument is extremely faulty and is an insult to the provinces, and to the province of Quebec in particular, because I want the minister and his colleagues to know that a constitution is not bought, that it is negotiated in good faith with understanding and in the required spirit of conciliation.
This afternoon, the hon. minister spoke of "verbal stupidities" and on this matter, Mr. Speaker, I would advise him to reread his own statements made in the House and elsewhere during the October crisis and he would find there the true definition of "verbal stupidities". He is not much more deserving than those of his friends he was accusing this afternoon.
The hon. minister accuses those who are concerned about real problems in Canada of being "scarecrows and prophets of gloom" to quote his own words.


Mr. Bechard:: It is true.


Georges-J. Valade: If it is true as the hon. member for Bona-venture-Iles-de-la-Madeleine says, according to the minister, Mr. Bourassa, Mr. Castonguay and Mr. L'Allier, who are all members of the Liberal government of Quebec are "prophets of gloom and alarmists" because they are the ones who have been complaining for many months, if not many years, about the obstinacy of the Liberal government and of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion's attitude.
If such is the case, Mr. Speaker, if the words of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion must be taken as a serious statement, I say that the minister will have an obligation in the next provincial elections in Quebec to commit itself to fight officially and openly against the government of Mr. Bourassa, or else we shall consider the words he said this afternoon as nonsense and proof of his irresponsibility.
If such is the case, Mr. Speaker-


André Ouellet: Phoney!


Georges-J. Valade: Are you finished belching? If you are sick, retire.


An hon. Member:: You started it.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should very much like to receive advice from a well-behaved person but if I read the things that the Prime Minister has said about Mr. Cournoyer a few days ago, I have no lessons in politeness to receive from the government.

June 22, 1972
Federal-Provincial Relations
Mr. Speaker, the motion to draw the attention of the House on the problem of federal-provincial relations also urges the government to act in this field.
The problem is definitely an important one as relations between Quebec and Ottawa and even between the other provinces and Ottawa have never been so bad as they are now.
One of the main reasons for this is the haughty, provoking and insulting attitude the present government has toward Quebec.


An hon. Member:: What about the 60's?


André Ouellet: What about the Diefenbaker administration?


Georges-J. Valade: The present St. Lawrence harbour strike provides a perfect illustration of this arrogance of the government, because of the way the Prime Minister of Canada spoke of the Quebec Minister of Labour in connection with that conflict.
You would have to be quite blind, Mr. Speaker, not to see how impossible it is for most provinces to meet the economic and social needs of their population.
In Quebec some types of welfare benefits for the poor have had to be reduced because of lack of funds. Provincial governments have to assume financial burdens forced upon them by unilateral federal legislation such as the Unemployment Insurance Act, extended to teachers and other groups, the Old Age Security Act and the Family Allowances Act.
This afternoon, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) said: "Not only the provinces, but we also need money." You can't beat that as a self-evident truth.
Of course the government needs money, not to develop meaningful measures, but to dissimulate its economic failure on the eve of a coming election, in a desperate effort to restore its prestige and its credibility in the eyes of the people.
No amount of discourse on the needs of governments at all levels will settle anything.
So long as the federal and provincial governments do not come to an agreement on fiscal distribution, there will be problems. This fiscal distribution between provinces and the federal government is urgent and should be embodied in a new constitution.
The Victoria conference was a failure precisely because the cart was put before the horse. They have discussed about everything except the essential issues and this was similar to asking the minister of Regional Economic Expansion to think before speaking. This is just as impossible as reaching a solution.
Before agreeing to a constitutional structure, the provinces, and mainly Quebec, rightly wanted to know how we could reach some acceptable agreement after having been tied down by a strict procedure.
Are these provincial situations and attitudes logical? It was responsible!

Unless a final agreement is reached on tax distribution, Mr. Speaker, this government will carry on with its centralization policy at the expense of the provincial economical and political balance.
Quebec and some other provinces are growing impatient because of the government's intransigence and for many months all provincial governments have been asking the government to resume the constitutional discussions on basic principles.
Two major events have been rocking Quebec, namely the social crisis which caused massive walk-outs and paralyzed several sectors and also the conflict between Quebec and Ottawa about federal-provincial relations and social security in particular and which almost caused two of Mr. Bourassa's most influential ministers to resign, namely Messrs. Castonguay and L'Allier.
Those events and the situation in Quebec should entice the government to re-open the constitutional debate and to move closer to the aspirations of the Quebec government and those of the other provinces. Quebec is not involved alone. The inability of the government to find a solution to the constitutional problem is at the heart of the present difficulties. That policy of confrontation, particularly towards Quebec, is nearly a national suicide. It sows division between Quebecers and irreparably opens a gap between federalists and separatists.
Therefore, in order to hasten the constitutional revision process and to promote the image of a greater Canada, the government should hold forthwith a constitutional conference based on the attribution of powers. The sharing of tax ressources would also be on the agenda, so as to take into account the increasing needs of the provinces.
The Victoria Charter failed because it did not make of the distribution of powers the focal point of the negotiations, and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion knows it. It is useless to try and make individual arrangements on secondary matters such as the repatriation of the Constitution or the adoption of a bill of human rights until negotiations were started on the basic issue. We must, therefore, regain the spirit which animated the Fathers of Confederation over 100 years ago and consider the constitutional review in its entire context.
The whole field of social security should be re-evaluated according to a criterion which could be as follows: In the context of the seventies, which level of government-provincial or federal-can best assume primary jurisdiction in the various spheres of Canadian activity? This is an important matter, in spite of the cynical smile of the Minister of Reginal Economic Expansion.
Mr. Speaker, areas of jurisdiction obviously need to be clearly defined. Our federal-provincial relations are literally assaulted by the overlapping activities of modern governments.
My suggestion, Mr. Speaker, is a new alternative, and a more constructive way to give a new start to constitutional negotiations, which after five years ended in deplorable failure.
The conference could be held in Quebec City, especially to commemorate the pre-Confederation period. It could
June 22, 1972

meet in camera and on an ongoing basis, and include first ministers or reprsentatives delegated for this purpose, as well as representatives of the opposition parties of all provincial governments.
Such a suggestion, Mr. Speaker, would certainly gain the support of the Quebec governement as well as those of other provinces. It would particularly meet the aspirations of minister Castonguay concerning the approach to constitutional review.
In English Canada, a positive response could be expected. We know that, recently, Ontario and British Columbia advocated a better distribution of powers between governments. The Ontario premier, Mr. Davis, took a position similar to that of his Quebec counterpart concerning telecommunications, respect for provincial priorities, and a new sharing of fiscal resources.
The relations between Ottawa and Quebec are at their lowest, and the Prime Minister will probably try, if he accepts this proposal, to erase the bad impression he left, particularly following certain remarks which he made and which were reported in the Toronto Star.
For himself, premier Bourassa, in the face of Ottawa's intransigence, is re-evaluation-we know it, and the government knows it-his whole relations with the federal government, and he may soon announce a new strategy, even going so far as to indicate that his government could retaliate against the central government.
Mr. Speaker, earlier, the Minister of Regional Economic Exansion expressed concern and accused the leader of the Progressive Conservative party (Mr. Stanfield) of having nothing to say on this matter and that all his statements were evasive and general and that he could make nothing out of them.
If the minister understand nothing, it is because he cannot read and does not want to understand. May I remind the minister, Mr. Speaker, that he should refer to the newspaper Montreal-Matin of May 31, 1972-this was not 10 or 20 years ago-and certain things are indicated about the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, and I quote:
For Mr. Stanfield, the role of the federal government is mainly one of coordination and support and the responsibiliy rests with the provinces and municipalities to make basic decisions on the direction of their politicies in urban development.
That is what the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party said with regard to urban responsibilities, demonstrating clearly that for many years his party has adopted clear and specific positions on particular points instead of making great statements on philosophical principles. Those positions have far more practical consequences than the personal attacks of the member for Papineau against certain journalists who are not here to defend themselves, and which I consider cowardice on his part, attacks that would better be made outside the House where they would be answered.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare on a question of privilege.
Federal-Provincial Relations


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that he cannot tax me with being a coward when I am here and ask him some questions and tell him, as I did the last time he spoke in the House, that I am ready to tackle him in his riding. He did not invite me today, but I am still willing to go back there.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell the Chair what is his question of privilege, because his remarks have nothing to do with a question of privilege.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the member for Sainte-Marie has called me a coward. I tell him that I am ready to go and tackle him in his riding and speak to his constituents. That is not cowardice.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The Parliamentary Secretary will admit that the point he is raising is not a question of privilege under the Standing Orders. The hon. member for Sainte-Marie.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, he is welcome in my constituency but he will not be there very long because our people will be expecting him if only to ship him back home immediately.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, and in reply to certain false statements we do realize that this debate should have remained objective, but considering the remarks made by the minister of Regional Economic Expansion it is necessary to set the record straight. The leader of the Progressive Conservative party, unlike what the minister of Regional Development said this afternoon made a statement, not yesterday, not last year, but on May 13, 1968, almost four years ago, stating his position. Let me quote from the speech he delivered in St. John's Newfoundland!
The Liberal government in Ottawa,-


Albert Béchard: Did that work?


Georges-J. Valade: That did not work because the Liberals tampered with the whole thing during the last election campaign, by appealing to personal feelings; the Liberal party, as we know, has never been able to discuss political issues because of this "Trudeaumania", a joke that will soon come to an end.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote from the remarks made by the leader of the official opposition, (Mr. Stanfield) in St-John, Newfoundland:
The Liberal government in Ottawa, during the past five years, missed such opportunities and failed in his obligation to assure that essential responsibility of national government.
-That is our theme because we do consult the provinces and we shall consult them soon. The quotation goes on:
They did not succeed in consulting the provinces on priorities related to economic development and social policy. They refused to adjust national programs to regional needs and objectives.
They went astern on programs which were useful to the provinces or changed them without sufficient consultation. They tried to force provinces into costly programs which they could not afford, and then, they lectured on the need for restraint.
This is not a display of strength on the part of a federal government, but rather a display of weakness, thoughtlessness and stupidity.
3408

June 22, 1972
Federal-Provincial Relations
Further on, Mr. Speaker, on page 2-


Albert Béchard: Would the hon. member permit a
question?


Georges-J. Valade: The hon. member will be able to ask his question afterwards.
On page 2 of the same text, Mr. Speaker, we find the following:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the honourable member but his allotted time has now expired although the Chair has allowed him an extra minute because of the question of privilege which was raised.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the motion by the Social Credit party refers to the deterioration of federal-provincial relations and blames it on the unilateral decisions of the federal government and its refusal to meet the legitimate needs of Canadian provinces. I can support that motion because it is obvious today, as it has been for some time, that this is a government which does not believe in consultation. It is a government which makes unilateral decisions regardless of the serious consequential effects of its decisions.
Let me deal with some of these decisions and their effects on people of this country. The most important decision made by this government, one which has had disastrous and divisive effects on our people, was the decision made some 21 years ago that the most important thing we had to do was fight inflation, and to fight inflation we could afford unemployment. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said in a press interview that he would not be deterred from his anti-inflationary policies even if it meant 6 per cent unemployment. He succeeded beautifully, because in almost every month for two years or more we have had 6 per cent or higher unemployment on a seasonally adjusted basis.
I could not help being impressed by the eloquent and passionate speech made earlier this afternoon by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand). I was interested, not in what he said but, rather, in what he did not say. It was not an accident. Here is a cabinet minister who came to this House after having served as the president of one of the major labour organizations in the province of Quebec. He made a major speech today and did not mention unemployment.
What is the record? The minister told us how great this country is doing and how wonderful everything is. Well, for May of 1972, 552,000 persons were unemployed. This figure is almost 10,000 more than the figure for May of last year. On a seasonally adjusted basis the unemployment figure was 6.2 per cent, compared to 6.3 per cent for May, 1971. What about the minister's province? He did not talk about it, but in the province of Quebec in May of 1972 there were 206,000 people unemployed. This figure is
10,000	more than the figure for the previous year.


Mr. Osier:: How many were there last month?


David Orlikow: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier) is making the same type of useless interjection that he so frequently makes.


Edmund Boyd Osler: How many were there last month, compared to the month before?


David Orlikow: There may be members of this House who are more stupid than the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, but they have enough brains to keep their mouths shut. The hon. member knows, or he ought to know if he knows anything, that one compares unemployment by relating one month to the same month in the year before. There were 10,000 more people unemployed in the province of Quebec in May, 1972, than there were in May, 1971. The seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment in the province of Quebec in May, 1972, was 8.1 per cent.
The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion did not mention a word about this. I want to compare the silence of the minister today with the type of statements he made before he came to this House. I have in my hand a copy of a memorandum submitted by the Confederation of National Trade Unions to the federal cabinet in February, 1964, when the minister was president of that organization. I wish to quote a few paragraphs from the section dealing with unemployment. This memorandum reads:
In Canada, there is no such thing as the right to work for a great number of citizens. Hundreds of thousands of Canadian workers are either unemployed, insufficiently paid, or worrying about the day when they will be told that their services are no more required.
It does not seem that the privileged group who is not suffering from unemployment is much disturbed by the chronic aspect of mass unemployment in Canada.
Obviously, the minister is one of the privileged group so he no longer needs to worry about mass unemployment as he did in 1964. Further in the statement we find these words:
In Canada, and most particularly in Quebec and in the Maritimes, unemployment rates exceeding 7 per cent and 10 per cent merely bring a few compassionate speeches and generous projects-
As I pointed out, unemployment last month in the province of Quebec, on a seasonally adjusted basis, was 8.1 per cent-and we do not even get compassionate speeches from the ex-president of the Confederation of National Trade Unions now that he is a minister. In this statement the minister closes by saying:
The state should concern itself above all with directing and orienting the economy and the distribution of wealth and with establishing conditions that ensure full employment and social security.
If ever there was a minister who forgot the things he spoke of before he entered politics, it is the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. The decision of the federal government, that unemployment was not important, was a unilateral decision. There were provinces which were concerned, and there are now provinces which are concerned. There were provinces which called on the federal government, and there are provinces which are now calling on the federal government, to do something about unemployment. Let me quote one paragraph from a statement made by the Premier of Manitoba to the federal-provincial conference held in Ottawa from November 15 to November 17, 1971:
June 22, 1972

Our concern with full employment is to ensure that people are saved the humiliation and hardship of involuntary unemployment, and to prevent the great waste of real output that unemployment entails, perhaps $8 billion or more in the period just past. In many of the other areas our fundamental concern is with how the output of the economy is distributed. Our fundamental concern is with equality of the human condition, and to this end we wish to see progress towards economic equality.
Did the Premier of Manitoba receive any co-operation from Ottawa; or was he ignored, as other premiers on other occasions have been ignored? Here, in dealing with unemployment, we have a glaring example of unilateral action by this government. Let me cite several other examples. If we have in Canada a system of universal hospital insurance, it is partly because the province of Saskatchewan, under the premiership of my colleague the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), started such a program. Also, if we have a national program it is because a Liberal government told the provinces it was willing to finance hospital insurance on a 50-50 basis.
Some years later, under another Liberal government headed by Mr. Pearson, this same proposal was put to the provinces in respect of medical insurance. Every province now has a system of universal, government-operated hospital and medical insurance. Until now 50 per cent of the cost of both programs has been borne by Ottawa. These programs, in many provinces-certainly the have-not provinces such as the Maritimes-would never have been started had it not been for the pressure applied, and I commend the government for doing this, to the provincial governments in respect of entering this kind of a program.


Mr. Drury:: That is co-operation.


David Orlikow: Exactly. I will come to that in a moment. What has happened? The cost of operating hospitals and a medical insurance plan has been accelerated. Costs have been going up by about 14 per cent per year. Suddenly the co-operation which my friend the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) referred to, the consultation and discussions which the federal government had carried on with the provinces, disappeared. The minister can shake his head, but the ministers of health and the ministers of finance of the provinces know the real facts.
Suddenly the provinces received a proposal from this minister saying that the period in which Ottawa would pick up 50 per cent of the cost of hospitalization and medical insurance had expired. Suddenly they are told that in the new negotiations Ottawa is prepared to agree only to increases in its contribution based upon the increase in the gross national product. We are speaking now of an increase of 6 per cent or 7 per cent a year. What happened to the co-operation of which the President of the Treasury Board speaks? It has gone.
Mr. Speaker, I can tell the President of the Treasury Board that the provincial ministers of finance and ministers of health are just as concerned, or more concerned, than he is about the increase in cost. They want to find ways of slowing up or stopping these increases. Some of them have been proposing that the government's schemes
Federal-Provincial Relations
should not simply cover payment of costs for treatment of acute cases in general hospitals but should cover nursing homes, rehabilitation hospitals and other forms of alternative care.
They want to work this out in co-operation with Ottawa, but Ottawa says, "Oh, no. We are telling you that we are only going to increase our contributions in the very near future by an increase in the gross national product," which is approximately half the annual increase of the cost of hospital and medical insurance. That is the kind of co-operation which Ottawa is proposing to the provinces.
Let us look at the whole program of paying for postsecondary education. There has been an explosion in the number of young people who finish high school and go into our universities, colleges, community colleges and technical institutes. That is good; we need much better educated people than we have had in the past. But the costs have been growing at a fantastic rate. This year, Ottawa estimates that it will be paying to the provinces, as its 50 per cent share of the cost of post-secondary education, in the neighbourhood of $534 million. That is a sharp increase over last year and the year before.
Again, the provinces are just as concerned about the rapidly escalating cost of post-secondary education as is the President of the Treasury Board. I am 99 per cent certain that the cost of education in every province in Canada is now higher than the total budgets of these provinces, 15 or 20 years ago. The provinces would be almost as stupid as the President of the Treasury Board if they did not realize that suddenly, in the last couple of years, a university degree is not an automatic guarantee of a job. Suddenly they begin to realize that if you have a BA, a BSc. or a Bachelor of Education you do not necessarily find a job. Suddenly they begin to realize, as they should and as Ottawa should, that we should be taking a good, hard look at the whole question of post-secondary education. Therefore, in the province of Ontario there is a commission, formerly headed by Professor Wright, studying the question of post-secondary education, and in Manitoba there is a task force headed by Michael Oliver, the new president of Carleton University, studying the question of post-secondary education. In other provinces, similar studies are being undertaken, and so they should.
But before these studies have been completed-and they are just beginning-before the findings have been digested, before recommendations have been made, before the provinces can possibly know what they will have to face in the next 10 or 20 years in the field of post-secondary education and what they can do, if anything, to arrest the spiralling cost of post-secondary education, again you have a unilateral decision of the federal government to cut back on the amount of money and on the percentage of the cost of post-secondary education which they have been paying until now.
I say that in these three fields-unemployment, health services both hospital and medical, and post-secondary education-what we have had in the last three years is a hardening on the part of the federal government. Unilateral decisions have been taken, some of them announced and some of them just implied-I presume, to be announced later; probably after the next federal election-that Ottawa is either getting out of shared-cost pro-
25319- 30J

June 22, 1972
Federal-Provincial Relations grams, most of which would not be in operation today if Ottawa had not urged the provinces to get in, if it had not offered the carrot of a 50 per cent payment, or Ottawa is making a unilateral decision to cut back on these commitments made to the provinces.
The President of the Treasury Board knows even better than I do that the projections made as to future revenue sources indicate that the prospects of the federal government-I hope it will be a different government than this one, in fact, I am sure it will be-in terms of revenues as compared to expenses are very good. The federal government in the next few years will likely be facing a surplus. The prospects of the provinces, which have the responsibility in dealing with such major forms of activity as education, health and welfare, are increased deficits and increased taxes. The situation has been exacerbated by the unilateral decision of the federal government to talk to the provinces but not to really consult and not to arrive at decisions on the basis of agreements.


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I have always found the NDP confusing. I have found them to be mixed up in many of their policies but never have I realized it so much as when I listened to the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) speaking on this motion. On the one hand, the hon. member seems to be the great defender of the provinces. That is how he spoke this evening. The reason he does so is probably because it is politically expedient at this time. The NDP, in the course of the last few months and perhaps the last few years under its new leader, has forgotten all about their principles, all about their famous concepts to save their political skins because they have been so unpopular and have had so many problems. Suddenly they change from one position to the other. On the one hand, tonight they defend the provinces-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) rising for the purpose of asking a question?


Mark Willson Rose: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) is imputing certain motives to the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). I cannot understand why he would do this, because I do not think the hon. member for Winnipeg North or his party threaten the hon. member.


Herb Breau: That is the problem with the NDP; they can give it but they cannot take it. I have not imputed motives to the hon. member for Winnipeg North; I am just responding to his speech. And I do not only respond to speeches when my constituency is threatened, because if that were the case I would not be speaking very often.


Mark Willson Rose: You do not speak very often, anyway.


Herb Breau: I speak just as often as the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose). The hon. member for Winnipeg North and some members of the NDP today suddenly respect the rights of the provinces. But what about their position on foreign control of the economy, for example? Do they respect the provinces? How many provinces support the stand of the NDP on foreign investment? How many provinces support the stand of the NDP

on the foreign takeover review act introduced by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin)?


David Orlikow: How many provinces support the government's proposals?


Herb Breau: Many provinces support the government's proposals. Even the premier of the province from which the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) comes is not that much against this government's proposals.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) knows that the hon. member who has the floor has only 20 minutes in which to make his speech. I think the hon. member should be allowed to make his speech.


Herb Breau: I point out that they cannot take it, Mr. Speaker.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. The hon. member for Lotbiniere on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, you have just said that the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) would be allowed 20 minutes. Between the Chair and us there has just been an agreement allowing the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe) to close the debate and to have 20 minutes for that purpose, which means that the hon. member for Gloucester will not have the floor for 20 minutes, though being allowed to make his speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. Nothing tells me that the hon. member is not entitled to his 20 minutes.


André-Gilles Fortin: I rise on a question of privilege. Your Honour, I do not mean to offend you, but I very respectfully beg you to inquire from your two assistants, who have quite an assignment to meet-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. There is no question of privilege. I have all the information I need to know that the hon. member for Gloucester is entitled to 20 minutes.


André-Gilles Fortin: I rise on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. Does the hon. member for Lotbiniere rise on another question of privilege?


André-Gilles Fortin: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept that decision and I question it because two hon. members from my party witnessed the agreement that was made with your colleague and we expect that agreement to be observed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order! I have stated my decision; the hon. member who has the floor is entitled to his 20 minutes.
June 22, 1972


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, I was just trying to point out the differences of opinion that we get from a party like the NDP, depending on the issue with which we are dealing. One day they do not give a heck about the provinces; they have the dogma, the theology, the answer to everything-name it, and they believe in their ideology to solve all problems such as foreign ownership of the economy. But when we talk about an issue on which the provinces are a little firm, the NDP sides with the provinces. I do not see how a party like that can take such stands if it ever dreams of coming to power.


Mark Willson Rose: Not in your province.


Herb Breau: You can bet on that. You won't have much support in my province.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to deal briefly with the comments made by the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade) who spoke before the hon. member for Winnipeg-North (Mr. Orlikow). The hon. member for Sainte-Marie mentioned a press release issued after the Victoria Conference. He was trying to use that press release to show that the federal government's position on the constitutional debate was a rigid and inflexible one and that the right honourable Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was an obstinate man who would not listen to anyone.
Mr. Speaker, had the hon. member taken time to read a little further he would have noted that it had been issued after the Victoria Conference jointly by all the participating governments. It was not a federal government release but a joint federal-provincial one which all the governments represented in Victoria had agreed to.
If the people attending a conference decide upon a joint release in which they state that in 8, 11, 12 or 50 days, they will give out an assessment of a situation, it seems to me they are free to do so, and the hon. member for Sainte-Marie cannot say that the federal government has prompted it.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sainte-Marie said that the Prime Minister was inflexible. I should like to tell him that there is a difference between firmness and inflexibility, between firmness and weakness. The hon. member probably sees our leader as one who controls everything, as his own leader who says one thing in one place and another thing in another one or in the House, according to what he is expected to say.
The Prime Minister has been firm on the constitutional issue; he has listened to the provinces. He has not been inflexible, but firm as the Prime Minister of a country, the head of government ought to be, especially when the matters at hand concern ten provincial governments.
The hon. member quoted two examples of governments which he thought were perfect: those of Ontario and British Columbia. These are two fine governments indeed to quote as examples in the fields of constitution and national unity! Ontario is an economically centralization-oriented government and British Columbia, which opposed the equalization system, accepts moneys from the federal government for introducing bilingualism and simply puts them in its general education funds while
Federal-Provincial Relations
neglecting to implement a program approved by the federal government.
These are two fine examples given by the member for Sainte-Marie, a member from Quebec, in the constitutional debate.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy tonight to take part in the debate on the motion of the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) on federal-provincial relations. This is an important subject and I commend the hon. member for drawing the attention of the House to it.
However, I cannot support his motion because I do not agree with this statement:
-the government's responsibility for the deterioration of federal-provincial relations-
If there is any.
I do not agree because generally speaking I feel that federal-provincial relations are better than ever.
There are many examples of federal-provincial agreements between the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the provinces; I am thinking also of agreements with other departments, the new fiscal arrangements and the new equalization formula which has been accepted by all first ministers, or at least by the constitutional conference of last December. I think it is wrong in view of this to suggest that federal-provincial relations are worse than ever. On the contrary, perhaps they have never been better.
Mr. Speaker, on the question of federal-provincial relations, many Canadians and members of this House consider the federal government, in our political system, as being a mere tax collector who unconditionally distributes his money around to the provinces which have all the necessary ability to administer them better than would the federal authority.
Mr. Speaker, such is not my idea of the part the federal government has to play in our system, nor is it that of my party nor of the government. I support the government's contention that it can handle as efficiently the benefits related to social services and influence the direction of such services provided to Canadians.
I do not intend by these comments to undermine the provinces, because I have always supported them.
Various precedents show that it is not true that the federal government has prevented some provinces to reform their welfare systems. I can even give some examples. When New Brunswick introduced a municipal tax reform within a program aiming at providing equal social services for the people, such program was meeting the needs of the population of New Brunswick.
When he introduced legislation to this effect, Hon. Mr. Robichaud did not come to Ottawa. Nobody in Ottawa could have prevented him from acting. There was no godfather in Ottawa whose permission should have been sought before embarking on a social reform in New Brunswick. Mr. Robichaud decided upon it and implemented it. It is as simple as that.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North talked about the time when the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The-

June 22, 1972
Federal-Provincial Relations Islands (Mr. Douglas) was premier of Saskatchewan. I do not think that that former premier of Saskatchewan-he was also a former leader of the NDP-ever asked Ottawa for permission for anything he wanted to do while he was premier. I do not think Ottawa stopped him from implementing social programs.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Right! He forced Ottawa to get into them.


Herb Breau: It would be good if other provincial premiers would do the same. If they were a little more positive and stopped bitching, they might solve their problems.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Explain.


Herb Breau: When his government decided to implement the hospital insurance program, they did not wait for Ottawa; they went ahead and implemented it.

In the social and economic fields, the provinces do not have to wait for Ottawa's approval. They do not have to blame Ottawa, if they do not try and solve the problems which are their responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, it has become a habit, particularly in Quebec-and the hon. member for Papineau mentioned it before and I should have liked the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade) to mention it too-for the federal government to serve as a smoke-screen, a scapegoat, to conceal all the problems. As soon as something goes wrong, it is Ottawa's fault.
As the hon. member for Winnipeg North said before, how many premiers have, for the last two years, tried to say that the economic policy of the government has been a handicap in federal-provincial relations? How many premiers answered, when they had problems: Let us blame the federal government anti-inflationary economic policy?
Mr. Speaker, Ottawa has become the scapegoat; instead of solving their own problems, the provinces simply blame the federal government.
Mr. Speaker, I could also speak of the New Democratic Party, but I would like to be as brief as possible.
I simply want to say that many members of this House, who sit on various committees, do not always respect the rights of provinces when talking of Canadian politics. To give only one example, yesterday, the leader of the NDP (Mr. Lewis) asked the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) a question concerning the decision of the province of Quebec to grant a licence to a lumber company.
Is the hon. member for York South not intelligent enough to know that this is a decision which comes under provincial jurisdiction? He knew this very well, Mr. Speaker. And yet, he asked this question, as can be seen on page 3341 of Hansard, thinking that the Minister of the Environment would say to Quebec, like a grandfather or a big brother: No, do not grant a licence to the ITT Rayoni-er Company. Do not do that. Grandfather Ottawa keeps an eye on everything. This is the concept of federalism of the hon. member for York South, and probably that of the New Democratic Party.

The way they see it, when it comes to resources development they tell the provinces: Hold on because we in Ottawa are more qualified.
Yet, in the field of foreign investment they are siding with the provinces this evening. I doubt if a single province shares their views on that point, even Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
Mr. Speaker, absolutely nothing prevents the provinces from deciding which measures are good from the political and economic point of view and from telling companies which develop resources: You must use those resources so that the people in the provinces will benefit from them.
For instance, there are mining operations in my area in northeastern New Brunswick. Right now the government allows Brunswick Mines-a wholly owned subsidiary of Noranda Mines Limited-to export pure zinc to Europe. Should the federal government be blamed for that? Is the federal government going to suggest to the province to stop disposing of its own resources in that way? This example shows that when a province has the will, it can find the way.
In the field of welfare, is it the federal government which has introduced very far-sighted social programs supported by many members in this House, such as Opportunities for Youth and the Local Initiatives program. Why were they not initiated by the provinces? What was holding back the province of Quebec-the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade) said that Ottawa was preventing the province of Quebec from introducing social programs-from introducing community development programs, employment programs for the have-nots in environmental improvement projects, training programs of all kinds; including social welfare programs such as the one administered by the minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) to which Ottawa will contribute 50 per cent. No. They just say that Ottawa interferes with provincial affairs.
For myself, Mr. Speaker, I see two sides to the matter of social services. There are, first, the grants given directly to individuals. In my opinion, it matters little to the person who receives it whether the cheque comes from Ottawa, Quebec, Fredericton, or Victoria.
Moreover, there is no provision in the constitution to prevent a province from levying taxes to cover the cost of additional programs. Why do they not do so?
On the other hand, nothing stops provinces from establishing real programs of social development, social motivation, or social commitment. Why do they not do so?

The hon. member for Fraser Valley West should listen to the translation, because I do not think he understands what I am saying.

I do not know whether it is because of lack of competence-


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I should like to pose a question to the hon. member.
June 22, 1972


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. The hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) rises for the purpose of asking a question.


Mark Willson Rose: I was wondering-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. The hon. member who has the floor has not agreed to accept a question.


Herb Breau: When the hon. member has the floor I listen to him and I would like the same courtesy extended to me. Let the hon. member resume his seat and try to understand what I am saying instead of interjecting to distort my comments.
Mr. Speaker, nothing is preventing the provinces in the field of social development from-


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege?


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, after I attempted to ask a question, the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) cast reflections on my intelligence. Since he has asked several rhetorical questions about why the provinces of Canada did not get extra benefits-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Mark Willson Rose: -I wonder if he would answer his own question-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau).


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand the attitude of the NDP when somebody tries to respond to their problems. Maybe they are so accustomed to being ignored that we should continue to ignore them. Any time I try to rise, the hon. member for Fraser Valley West-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: He doesn't like you.


Herb Breau: -tries to stop me from speaking. I think I am allowed the allotted time to speak, as is any other member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: How much time?


Herb Breau: If the hon. member can't stand the heat, he should walk out. Nobody will miss him.

Mr. Speaker, I simply said that in the social and economic field absolutely nothing is preventing the provinces from setting their own priorities, from determining what should be done with both their financial and mineral resources.
I will conclude by saying that this government and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion are an illustration of how the federal government is simply using its
Federal-Provincial Relations
taxing and spending power to put funds at the provinces' disposal when they have set their priorities, have planned and have worked at the preparation of projects.
This is an example of our federalism and I do not believe that too many countries can boast of having anything similar.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on the motion presented by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier), which is so interesting that all hon. members would like to talk on it to the extent that we have been practically deprived of our time in favour of others. It is a little like finance, which deprives us of everything.
Mr. Speaker, we wish to talk about Social Credit and the economy. We talk about an economic not a political matter. While all hon. members, particularly on the government side, talk about political questions only, we of the Social Credit limit ourselves to the economy and the autonomy of the provinces.
Autonomy is the right to administer one's self, to adopt one's own laws and to enact one's own regulations. The provinces are not satisfied, because they have become beggars.
Social Credit wants autonomy not only for the provinces but also for the municipalities, for the family and for the individual. This makes the big difference between Social Credit and the various forms of socialism. They both want a reform that guarantees the economic security and the satisfaction of temporal needs, but Social Credit wants each person to keep the right to dispose of himself, whereas socialism wants the state to dispose of them.
That is what we have now with the Liberal party because it has become a socialist organism in a proportion of nearly 100 per cent.
It is very nice to call the family the essential cell of society, to tell parents that they are their own masters at home, to remind everyone that the family must have an opportunity to bloom; but if there is nothing on the table, if access to the products is not related to the number of mouths to be fed instead of the work imposed, the very concept of the family entity is annihilated.
Mr. Speaker, the same applies to the autonomy of the provinces. We certainly have provinces that are rich in human resources and raw materials but also in ideals. And when thousands of young people and almost as many family heads are reduced to destitution in the face of unused wealth, where then is the autonomy? Where is the right of the provinces to legislate themselves with a view to putting the wealth of the province at the disposal of its citizens?
What keeps the governement from placing the fruit of the soil, forests, rivers, sea and mines at the service of the families that are deprived of the most basic things? The lack of the essential element, token money, to which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) referred today.
Here we have a province-Quebec-with a production which meets the needs of some 6 million in habitants, 5 million of whom are leading a very modest way of life.

June 22, 1972
Federal-Provincial Relations


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) rises a point of order.


Mr. Deachman:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, because I believe there has been some misunderstanding regarding the division of time. If there is unanimous consent, I wonder if the hon. member who now has the floor might be permitted to continue until not later than five minutes to ten in order that he may finish his speech, inasmuch as his party moved the motion which the House is debating.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman). Is it agreed that the Chair shall see the clock at 9.55 p.m.?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. members for having complied with this request, and having been fair enough to allow me to proceed.
If a province is not permitted to make laws for the distribution of the accumulated production so as to meet the needs of all its people, how autonomous is it?
And if the province can only correct the situation by taking something away from some people to give it to others and letting glut go to waste, where is its autonomy? It is a simple matter of money, as some people may say, but we are not responsible for making it so, the system is.
If the government responsible for the common good only had to face the facts, the only requirement would be to meet the needs of the people, and the question of money would not arise.
However, financial regulations complicate the whole situation and cripple the provincial governments most set on autonomy as well as the federal government. Mankind has needs because the Creator wanted it so, and as long as a government is short of money and is unable to cope with the problem, there is no autonomy for the crippled government, for the deprived family, for the individual, who must accept anything or die from hunger.
This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) asked us to open our eyes and to quote figures to prove that this government has done much to balance the economy in a normal and satisfactory fashion.
So, I have before me a copy of the estimates from 1953 to 1973. You can see all the deficits accumulated over that period by the two parties which have in turn been in office, that is the Progressive Conservatives and the Liberals. In 1955, there was a first deficit, and this has lasted until now. In fact, we will have a deficit of about three billions in 1973. And for the last score, we have had deficits 18 years out of 20. But they will tell us that we have a sound administration, that we should produce figures and get down to bed-rock. This is precisely what we are doing.

Can we go on governing with deficits? Can we go on leaving all the provinces reduced to beggary in our deficit system? Are we right to want to develop a financial system capable of bringing our economy back into balance?
The hon. Minister of Regional Economic Expansion asked us to give him figures. I shall give him figures, and they are the government's own official statistics.
Here is a list of deficits for the past twelve years: 196162, $791 million; 1962-63, $692 million; 1963-64, 619 million; 1964-65, $38 million; 1965-66, $39 million; 1966-67, $422 million; 1967-68, $795 million; 1968-69, $576 million; 196970, $393 million; 1970-71, $370 million; 1971-72, $750 million; 1972-73, $800 million.
The net debt on March 31, 1970, was $16,943 million, and on March 31, 1971, of $17,360 million. On March 31, 1972 it was $17,922,400,000.
The net debt increase was $421 million in 1967, $794 million in 1968, $576 million in 1969, $392 million in 1970, $417 million in 1971, $552 million in 1972. This is the type of administration considered as being fine, condensed, balanced, and honest by the minister.
Mr. Speaker, the interest on the debt-


An hon. Member:: You distort the facts.


Henry P. Latulippe: I am not distorting facts; these are official figures.
The interest on the debt in 1970-71 was $1,880 million, or $5,150,684 per day; in 1971-72, it will be $2,030 million or $5,561,643 per day; in 1972-73, it will be $2,260 million or $6,191,000 per day. These are figures that the minister should know and study.
The minister should go a little further into things because his logics are definitely lacking when he asks that we provide him with statistics. These statistics that I am giving him are authentic because they come from Statistics Canada.
Mr. Speaker, if we had a creditiste government in Ottawa, it would see to it that money and credit issues be proportional to available goods. Instead of using these issues itself it would distribute them in block to the provincial governments proportionately to the population, leaving these governments free to dispose of them as they wish.
Provincial autonomy would be respected as well as family and personal autonomy. It would be respected in social credit provinces but ignored by the Socialist provinces. It is up to the citizens of each province to look after their own future.
Mr. Speaker, the main responsibility of a government is to remove any obstacles in order to allow the lower level administrations to handle their own affairs. This, the government is not doing now. The main obstacle is a financial one and the main responsibility of the government is to have that obstacle removed. Thereafter, its interventions will no longer be required often. The members of the Social Credit party do understand it because, their idea is that the financial obstacle is unjustifiable-
June 22, 1972


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Honey):: Order, please. It being after 9.45 o'clock p.m., it is my duty, in accordance with section (10) of Standing Order 58, to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of any item of business relating to supply before the House, including any bill or bills thereon.
Consequently, the first question is the following:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is the following one; the hon. President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) moves:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $16,324,000 of the Department of Communications for Communications-operating expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply) be concurred in.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point of order is based primarily on two parts of Standing Order 58 which is the standing order that governs our supply procedure. Standing Order 58(4)(a) reads, in part:
Twenty-four hours' written notice shall be given of an opposition motion on an allotted day or of a notice to oppose any item in the estimates.
Immediately under item No. 1 on page vii of today's order paper, which Your Honour has just read, is a notice of opposition in the name of my colleague, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett). This notice was filed on June 19 in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 58(4)(a), a portion of which I read just a moment ago. I may point out that there are many such notices of opposition on the order paper that is before us tonight, but the points I wish to make with respect to this one apply to all of the others, with the exception of three of them.
The notice that was given by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni in relation to item No. 1 which, of course, is before us quite properly because it was given at least 24 hours in advance, was accepted by the Table and is on the order paper. I now draw Your Honour's attention also to Standing Order 58(8) which reads as follows:
Opposition motions shall have precedence over all government supply motions on allotted days and shall be disposed of as provided in sections (9), (10) and (11) of this order.
When one reads sections (9), (10) and (11) of this order, and I do not think it is necessary for me to do so, he finds references therein to opposed items in the estimates.
My principal point of order is this: With the hon. member for Comox-Alberni having given notice of opposition to an item in the estimates, he has the right under Standing Order 58(8) to have his notice of opposition given precedence. However, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) subsequently put down a government notice of motion for the approval of a certain item in the estimates. The fact Your Honour has called that motion
Estimates
first means that it is being given precedence over the notice of opposition presented by my colleague, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni.
Perhaps I might be permitted a word of explanation. I know this is not a time for debate and that one has to stick to procedure, but in the notice of motion given by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni he asks that the amount of money under Vote 1 of the Department of Communications, Information branch, be a sum not exceeding $61,000. His reason was that that is approximately one quarter of the amount that is provided for information under the Department of Communications, as will be found on page 3-8 of the blue book of estimates where the figure is given as $244,000.
What my hon. friend wanted this House to do was vote on the reduction of that $244,000 for the information branch in this particular department to $61,000. He placed that notice of motion first. I claim for Jiim the provisions of Standing Order 58(8), but instead Your Honour has now read to us the motion in the name of the President of the Treasury Board which asks us to vote yes or no on a sum of $16,324,000, which is the entire amount of Vote 1 in the estimates of the Department of Communications. What is the value of the Standing Order giving a member the right to give notice of opposition, a right which has been recognized by his notice being put on the order paper, if instead of having the chance to vote on reducing $244,000 to $61,000, we are being asked to vote yes or no on the sum of $16,324,000? I suggest this is making a mockery of such rights as remain to us for the voting of supply as set out in Standing Order 58.
I point out that this is the first time the issue has arisen in this form. In previous sessions, since the new supply procedures came into effect, we have on a number of occasions given notice of opposition to certain votes or items in their entirety. There are three such notices of opposition on the order paper tonight. One is number three, in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis); one is No. 42, which is against the Senate and is in my name, and the third is No. 74 in the name of the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir). Each of those three, as I say, is a notice of opposition to the entire amount of an estimate. We have done this in previous sessions and it is quite true that in those sessions our notices of opposition to entire items were countered in each case by a notice of motion by the President of the Treasury Board in favour of an entire item.
Your Honour may ask why we did not raise objection at that time. The answer is that it did not make any difference; instead of our voting to eliminate an item we voted against a motion to pass an item. But tonight, for the first time since this procedure came into effect, we are faced with a different situation because what we are asking for now is not the right to vote against an entire item-we shall get that in the three cases I have cited-but for the right to vote for or against the reduction in the amount of an item. In the case of the first one, as I have made clear, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has asked the House to vote for a notice of opposition under which he seeks to cut the amount of an item under the Department of Com-

June 22, 1972
Estimates
munications, namely, $240,000 down to $61,000. Instead, however, Your Honour has put a motion which calls upon the House to vote yes or no on an item of $16,324,000.
My point of order is that before you put the motion in the name of the President of the Treasury Board, Your Honour should be putting the notice of motion in the name of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni because under Standing Order 58 opposition motions on opposition days take precedence over government supply motions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to support very briefly the procedural argument put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I wish to base my argument less on the procedural aspect and more on the grounds of common sense.


Mr. Bell:: What rule is that?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair would like to hear the hon. member for Greenwood.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I wish to base my argument on the premise that the rules of the House should make sense and should enable hon. members to perform one of their essential, historic functions which is to control the expenditure of the taxpayers dollar.
I wish to give an illustration. Item No. 29 in today's Routine Proceedings gives notice of opposition to voting more than $30 million on the NORAD defence system, an active defence system which has been obsolete for ten years.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. With respect, I have to caution hon. members that they should stay strictly within the bounds of the procedural question we have before us.


Francis Andrew Brewin: If Your Honour would permit me to finish my sentence you would see its relevance to the procedural point. I would say that the amount saved to the exchequer would be $120 million, but presumably we are being restricted to voting only on the motion of the President of the Treasury Board that the whole of vote five for National Defence, amounting to $1,448 million, the total operating expenditure on our armed forces, be approved. If the ruling is against what has been urged by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre I, and other hon. members of the House, will be deprived of our right to object to an expenditure which is unnecessary or wasteful; we will not be allowed to strike out a clearly wasteful expenditure without voting to strike out the whole of a large item comprising vast expenditures upon the armed forces.
I urge upon you, Mr. Speaker, that there is a basic rule when interpreting any procedural or legal provision, that is, it should be interpreted so as to make sense, not nonsense.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, as everyone who has ever participated in any assembly or had anything to do with the

law knows, procedural points, procedural provisions, or procedural arguments, always attach themselves to very important substantive considerations. We are not raising these procedural arguments merely for the sake of doing so. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has not raised this point merely to make a speech, to give hon. members opposite an opportunity to chatter while the discussion goes on. We raise this procedural argument because in our view the provisions which now govern the work of the House of Commons in connection with estimates make a mockery of members of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: They make the applications of the rules meaningless as far as our ancient role of exerting surveillance over government expenditure is concerned. It is, in my opinion, totally absurd that hon. members should be prohibited from voting against an expenditure which they consider to be wrong and wasteful, and to be placed in the position of voting against a total item which includes expenditures they may very well support. But this is what the rule brings us to do. This is why the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre raised this procedural argument. He appeals to you, as I do, that you apply subsection eight of rule 58 which clearly states that opposition motions shall take precedence over all government supply motions on allotted days. Our motions of opposition have precedence. The members of this House have a right as well as a duty to vote against what they consider to be wasteful expenditure without being placed in the position of opposing an entire item which contains expenditures they support.
I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, members of the House and everyone else, that if your ruling should place us in the untenable position, in the ridiculous position, in the unfair position of having to vote against an entire item because we do not possess the rights we should possess to vote against a portion of an item to which we are opposed, then we shall have no alternative but to vote against the entire item, and to keep voting against item after item after item unless there is some common sense in the rules as applied to us.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in respect of which the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) and the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) have submitted argument. I might deal first with the argument of the hon. member for York South who has just resumed his seat. I think hon. members will acknowledge that the Chair has the responsibility of carrying out the Standing Orders, the precedents and decisions which are binding upon the Chair. The hon. member for York South has argued very well, but with respect I think he has not argued about the responsibilities of the Chair. He has really been arguing that if the Chair rules against him he will have to take certain other action. Of course, under the Standing Orders, that is his right. I do not wish to comment upon whether the Standing Orders and practices are fair and just. My comment is that the Chair must be guided by the
June 22, 1972

Standing Orders, precedents and practices of the House. That is the basis on which I have to make my decision.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who introduced the point of order, has argued that Item No. 1, the notice of opposition in the name of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), should take precedence over the motion in the name of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury). It seems to the Chair that in his argument the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre spelled out the distinctions on which I must base my ruling. He referred to Standing Order 58(4)(a), among others, and I will read the part referred to by the hon. member:
Twenty-four hours' written notice shall be given of an opposition motion on an allotted day-
I want to emphasize this because it then reads:
-or of a notice to oppose any item in the estimates.
With respect, I think one must make this differentiation between a motion and a notice to oppose, because that is made quite clear in the Standing Order to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred. I would agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre if he could convince me that the notice of opposition standing in the name of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is, in fact, a motion. In my respectful submission it is not a motion, and I think this is clear from the Standing Order to which I have referred. It is a notice of opposition and is not, in fact, a motion, and that is quite clear from the Standing Order.
The hon. member referred to page vii of Routine Proceedings and Orders of the Day, and we find that the heading there is "Opposed Items in the Estimates". Again referring to Standing Order 58(4)(a), in my respectful submission what the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has set down is a notice to oppose an item, not a motion.
In conclusion, because I think it would be helpful to go back to the history of the standing order, I might refer hon. members to House of Commons Journals, 1968-69 at page 429, being the report of the Special Committee on Procedure of the House, specifically the third report of the said committee. Then, turning to page 431 we find under paragraph (i) the following, and I will take a moment to read this:
The final decisions in relation to the main estimates of each department of government would be held over until the end of the third supply period so that the opportunity to debate any department would remain open throughout the session. A Member wishing to vote against an estimate would be required to give notice, and motions for the adoption of unopposed estimates could be consolidated into a single question.
Indeed, that is the situation we have before us. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni has given notice that he would like to oppose a particular item and vote against it. Having given that notice, the estimate is put in the form of a motion to the Chamber, at which time hon. members have the right to vote for or against it.
I make this ruling on what I think is the plain and clear meaning of the Standing Orders. If hon. members feel that the Standing Orders and our procedures are unfair, of course the remedy remains in the hands of hon. members. This is not something of which the Chair can take cognizance at this time. Therefore, with regret, I must rule
Division
against the point of order of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
The question is on vote 1. All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: I declare
NAYS Messrs:
Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond) Maclnnis (Mrs.)
MacKay MacLean Macquiarrie McCleave McGrath McKinley McQuaid Mather Matte
Mazankowski Monteith Murta Nesbitt Noble Nowlan Orlikow Peddle Peters Ritchie Rock Rodrigue Rondeau Rose Rowland Ryan
Schumacher Scott Simpson Southam
Stewart (Marquette) Thompson (Red Deer) Thomson
(Battleford-Kindersley) Valade
Woolliams-71.
motion carried.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 10, in the amount of $10,401,000 of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs for Corporate Affairs-program expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Drury) which was agreed to on the following division.
++NAYS
Messrs:
Aiken	Maclnnis (Cape
Alexander	Breton-East Richmond)
Alkenbrack	Maclnnis (Mrs.)
Beaudoin	MacKay
Bell	MacLean
Benjamin	Macquarrie
Blackburn	McCleave
Brew in	McGrath
Broadbent	McKinley
Burton	McQuaid
Carter	Mather
Crouse	Matte
Danforth	Mazankowski
Diefenbaker	Monteith
Douglas	Murta
Faiirweather	Nesbitt
Flemming	Noble
Fortin	Nowlan
Gilbert	Orlikow
Gleave	Peddle
Godin	Peters
Grills	Ritchie
Hales	Rock
Harding	Rodrigue
Harkness	Rondeau
Horner	Rose
Howe	Rowland
Knowles (Winnipeg	Ryan
North Centre)	Schumacher
Knowles (Norfolk-	Scott
Haldimand)	Simpson
Lambert	Southam
(Bellechasse)	Stewart (Marquette)
Latulippe	Thompson (Red Deer)
Lewis	Thomson
Lundrigan	(Ba ttlef ord -Kindersley)
MacDonald (Egmont)	Valade Woolliams-70.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 25, in the amount of $469,000 of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs for Prices and Incomes Commission-Program Expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31,1973 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.
(Division No. 32)
Allmand
Andras
Badanai
Barrett
Bechard
Benson
Blair
Blouin
Borrie
Boulanger
Breau
Buchanan
Caccia
Cafik
Cantin
Chappell
Clermont
Cobbe
Comtois
Corriveau
Cote (Richelieu)
Cote (Longueuil)
Cyr
Danson
Davis
Deachman
Deakon
De Bane
Drury
Dube
Dupras
Duquet
Ethier
Faulkner
Forest
Forget
Foster
Francis
Gendron
Gervais
Gibson
Gillespie
Gray
Guay (St. Boniface) Guilbault Haidasz Hopkins
YEAS Messrs:
Howard
(Okanagan Boundary) Hymmen Jerome Kaplan Lachance Lajoie
Lang (Saskatoon-
Humboldt)
Langlois
Laniel
Leblanc (Laurier)
LeBlanc (Rimouski)
Lefebvre
Legault
Lessard
(Lac-Saint-J ean) L'Heureux Loiselle MacEachen MacGuigan Mackasey McBride Mahoney Marceau Marchand
(Langelier)
Marchand
(Kamloops-Cariboo) Morison Munro O'Connell Olson Orange Osier Otto Ouellet Pepin Portelance Prud'homme Reid Richard Richardson Roberts Robinson Rochon Roy (Laval)
Division
Messrs:

June 22, 1972
Serre
Sharp
Smith
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)
Smith (Saint-Jean)
Stafford
Stanbury
Stewart (Cochrane) Stewart
(Okanagan-Kootenay) St. Pierre Sulatycky Sullivan
Aiken
Alexander
Alkenbrack
Beaudoin
Bell
Benjamin
Blackburn
Brewin
Burton
Carter
Crouse
Danforth
Diefenbaker
Douglas
Fairweather
Flemming
Fortin
Gilbert
Gleave
Godin
Grills
Hales
Harding
Horner
Howe
Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre)
Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand)
Latulippe
Lewis
Lundrigan
MacDonald (Egmont) Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond)
Thomas
(Maisonneuve-
Rosemont)
Tolmie
Trudeau
Trudel
Turner (London East)
Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)
Wahn
Walker
Watson
Weatherhead
Whelan
Whiting-112.
NAYS Messrs:
Maclnnis (Mrs.)
MacKay
MacLean
Maoquarrie
McCleave
McGrath
McKinley
McQuaid
Mather
Mazankowski
Murta
Nesbitt
Noble
Nowlan
Orlikow
Peddle
Peters
Ritchie
Rock
Rodrigue
Rondeau
Rose
Rowland
Ryan
Rynard
Schumacher
Scott
Simpson
Southam
Stewart (Marquette) Thompson (Red Deer) Thomson
(Battlef ord-Kindersley) Valade
Woolliams-66.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Gander-Twillin-gate (Mr. Lundrigan) rise on a question of privilege?


Mr. Lundrigan:: In view of the fact that it is now 11.30, would hon. members agree to a hunger strike instead of a continuation of this voting procedure?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 1, in the amount of $5,960,000 of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources for administration-program expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.
[Mr. Speaker.)


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Drury) which was agreed to on the following division.
(Division No. 33)
YEAS Messrs:
Allmand
Andras
Badanai
Barrett
Bechard
Benson
Blair
Blouin
Borrie
Boulanger
Breau
Buchanan
Caccia
Cafik
Can tin
Chappell
Chretien
Clermont
Cobbe
Comtois
Corriveau
C6te (Richelieu)
Cote (Longueuil)
Cyr
Danson
Davis
Deachman
Deakon
De Bane
Drury
Dube
Dupras
Duquet
Ethier
Faulkner
Forest
Forget
Foster
Francis
Gendron
Gervais
Gibson
Gillespie
Gray
Guay (St. Boniface)
Guilbault
Haidasz
Hopkins
Howard
(Okanagan Boundary) Hymmen Kaplan Lachance Lajoie
Lang (Saskatoon-
Humboldt)
Langlois
Laniel
Leblanc (Laurier)
LeBlanc (Rimouski)
Lefebvre
Legault
Lessard
(Lac-Saint-Jean) L'Heureux Loiselle MacEachen MacGuigan Mackasey McBride Mahoney Mareeau Marchand
(Langelier)
Marchand
(Kamloops-Cariboo)
Morison
Munro
O'Connell
Olson
Orange
Osier
Otto
Ouellet
Pepin
Portelance
Prud'homme
Reid
Richard
Richardson
June 22, 1972

Roberts Robinson Rochon Roy (Laval)
Serre
Sharp
Smith
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)
Smith (Saint-Jean)
Stafford
Stanbury
Stewart (Cochrane) Stewart
(Okanagan-Kootenay) St. Pierre
Aiken
Alexander
Alkembrack
Beaudoin
Bell
Benjamin
Blackburn
Brewin
Broadbent
Burton
Carter
Crouse
Danforth
Diefenbaker
Douglas
Fairweather
Flemming
Fortin
Gilbert
Gleave
Godin
Grills
Hales
Harding
Howe
Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand) Lambert
(Bellechasse)
Latulippe
Lewis
Lundrigan
MacDonald (Egmont)
Messrs:
Sulatycky
Sullivan
Thomas
(Maisonneuve-
Rosemont)
Tolmie
Trudeau
Trudel
Turner (London East)
Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)
Wahn
Walker
Watson
Weatherhead
Whelan
Whiting-112.
NAYS Messrs:
Maclnnis (Cape
Breton-East Richmond) Maclnnis (Mrs.)
MacKay
MacLean
Macquarrie
McCleave
McGrath
McKinley
McQuaid
Mather
Mazankowski
Murta
Nesbitt
Noble
Nowlan
Orlikow
Peddle
Peters
Ritchie
Rock
Rodrigue
Rondeau
Rose
Rowland
Ryan
Scott
Simpson
Southam
Stewart (Marquette) Thompson (Red Deer) Thomson
(Battlef ord-Kindersley) Valade
Woolliams-65.
Division
I would like to move, with unanimous consent, that for the purpose of the present sitting, if other votes are necessary, we forget about the 15 minutes' notice.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is proposing a motion. I do not know whether it is under Standing Order 43 or some other Standing Order. When we reach 11.30 tomorrow morning that motion might become in order.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 5, in the amount of $35,557,000 of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources for Mineral and Energy Resources- Program expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply) be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. For those who want to use up our energy, 1 should like to point out that we have finished the fourth vote and there are 85 more to go.


Mr. De Bane:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Matane rising on a point of order?


Pierre De Bané: June 22, 1972
Division Messrs:
Olson
Orange
Osier
Otto
Ouellet
Pepin
Portelance
Prud'horame
Reid
Richard
Richardson
Roberts
Robinson
Rochon
Roy (Timmins)
Roy (Laval)
Serrd
Sharp
Smfth
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)
Smith (Saint-Jean)
Stafford
Stanbury
Stewart (Cochrane) Stewart
(Okanagan-Kootenay) St. Pierre Sulatyeky Sullivan Thomas
(Maisonneuve-
Rosemont)
Tolmie
Trudeau
Trudel
Turner (London East)
Turner (Ottawa-Oarleton)
Wahn
Walker
Watson
Weatherhead
Whelan
Whiting-112.
Rose
Rowland
Ryan
Rynard
Schumacher
Scott
Simpson


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Messrs:
Southam
Stewart (Marquette) Thompson (Red Deer) Thomson
(Battlef ord-Kindersley) Valade
W oolliams-64.
the motion carried.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 15, in the amount of $29,269,000 of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources for Earth Sciences-program expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed to the said motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.
(Division No. 35)
	NAYS		YEAS
	Messrs:		Messrs:
Aiken	Latulippe		
Alexander	Lewis	Allmajnd	DeakonAlkenbrack	Lundrigan	Andras	De BaneBeaudoin	MacDonald (Egmont)	Badanaf	DruryBell	Maclinnas (Cape	Barrett	DubeBenjamin	Breton-East Richmond)	Bechard	DuprasBlackburn	Maclnnis (Mrs.)	Benson	DuquetBrewin	MacKay	Blair	EthierBroadbent	MacLean	Blouin	FaulknerBurton	Macquarrie	Borrie	ForestCarter	McCleave	Boulanger	ForgetCrouse	McGrath	Breau	FosterDanforth	McKinley	Buchanan	FrancisDeifenbaker	McQuaid	Caccia	GendronDouglas	Mather	Cafik	GervaisFairweather	Mazankowski	Cantin	GibsonFortin	Murta	Chappell	GillespieGilbert	Nesbftt	Chretien	Guay (St. Boniface)Gdeave	Noble	Clermont	GuilbaultGodin	Nowlan	Cobbe	HaidaszGrills	Orlikow	Comtois	HopkinsHales	Peddle	Cornveau	HowardHarding	Peters	Cdte (Richelieu)	(Okanagan Bound;Knowles (Winnipeg	Ritchie	Cote (Longueuil)	HymmenNorth Centre)	Rock	Cyr	KaplanKnowles (Norfolk-	Rodrigue	Danson	LachanceHaldimand)	Rondeau	Deachman	Lajoie

Division
Messrs:
Lang (Saskatoon-Humboldt)
Langlois
Laniel
Leblanc (Laurier) LeBlanc (Rimouski) Lefebvre Legault
Lessard
(Lac-Saint-Jean)
L'Heureux
Lofselle
Macdonald (Rosedale) MacEachen MacGuigan Mackasey McBride Mahoney Marceau Marchand (Langelier) Marchand
(Kamloops-Cariboo) Morison Munro O'Connell Olson Oranige Osier Ouellet Pepin Portelance Prud'homme Reid
Richard
Richardson
Roberts
Robinson
Rochon
Roy (Timmins)
Roy (Laval)
Serre
Sharp
Smfth
(Northumberland-
Minamichi)
Smith (Saint-Jean)
Stafford
Stanbury
Stewart (Cochrane) Stewart
(Okanagan-Kootenay) St. Pierre Sulatycky Sullivan Thomas
(Maisonneuve-
Rosemont)
Tolmie
Trudeau
Trudeil
Turner (London East)
Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)
Wahn
Walker
Watson
Weatherhead
Whelan
Whiting-111.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Motion agreed to.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 1, in the amount of $11,550,000 of the Department of the Environment for administration-program expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
++NAYS
Messrs:
Aiken	Maclnnis (Mrs.)
Alexander	MacKay
Alkenbrack	MacLean
Beaudoin	Macquarrie
Bell	McCleave
Benjamin	McGrath
Blackburn	McKinley
Brewin	McQuaid
Broadbent	Mather
Burton	Mazankowski
Carter	Murta
Crouse	Nesbftt
Danforth	Noble
Diefenbaker	Nowlan
Douglas	Orlikow
Fairweather	Peddle
Fortin	Peters
Gilbert	Ritchie
Gleave	Rock
Godin	Rodrigue
Grills	Rondeau
Hales	Rose
Harding	Rowland
Harkness	Ryan
Howe	Rynard
Knowles (Winnipeg	Schumacher
North Centre)	Scott
Knowfles (Norfolk-	Simpson
Haldimand)	Southam
Latulippe	Stewart (Marquette)
Lewis	Thompson (Red Deer)
Lundrigan	Thomson
MacDonald (Egmont)	(Battleford-Kindersley)
Maclnnis (Cape	Valade
Breton-East Richmond)	Woolliams-66.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
[DOT]	(0100)


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 5, in the amount of $90,868,286 of the Department of the Environment for environmental quality-operating expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried on division. Motion agreed to.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1, DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 1, in the amount of $79,506,000 of the Department of External Affairs for International Affairs-operating expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 25, DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 25, in the amount of $11,691,000 of the Department of External Affairs for the Canadian International Development Agency-operating expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 1, in the amount of $8,673,000 of the Department of Finance for financial and economic policies-program expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it. I declare the said motion carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 10, in the amount of $246,000 of the Department of Finance for anti-dumping tribunal-program expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31,1973 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
June 22, 1972


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the said motion carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 20, in the amount of $761,000 of the Department of Finance for insurance-program expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973 dess the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the said motion carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the House is now of the opinion that in order that Your Honour's voice may be saved, it would be simpler if Your Honour called out the numbers preceding the votes. I think in this way hon. members could keep pace with Your Honour.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 25, in the amount of $441,000 of the Department of Finance for Tariff Board-program expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the said motion carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 1, in the amount of $11,161,800 of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for administration- program expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Estimates


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 5, in the amount of $227,338,000 of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for Indian and Eskimo Affairs-operating expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31,1973 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 20, in the amount of $25,584,000 of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for northern development-operating expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 65, in the amount of $27,598,900 of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for conservation-operating expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 1, in the amount of $44,812,000 of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce for trade-industrial-operating

June 22, 1972
Estimates
expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is carried on division.
Motion agreed to.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 20, in the amount of $16,156,000 of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce for tourism-program expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the said motion carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 25, in the amount of $1,880,000 of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce for grains and oilseeds-operating expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the said motion carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 45, in the amount of $55,464,000 of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce for Statistics Canada-program expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the said motion carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 1, in the amount of $15,907,000 of the Department of Justice for Justice-program expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the said motion carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 1, in the amount of $15,222,000 of the Department of Manpower and Immigration for administration-program expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the said motion carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 5, in the amount of $244,519,000 of the Department of Manpower and Immigration for development and utilization of manpower-operating expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
June 22, 1972


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the said motion carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 15, in the amount of $27,205,000 of the Department of Manpower and Immigration for immigration-program expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the said motion carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 20, in the amount of $7,346,000 of the Department of Manpower and Immigration for program development service- program expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the said motion carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 1, in the amount of $7,758,000 of the Department of National Defence for administration-program expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the said motion carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Division
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 5, in the amount of $1,448,216,000 of the Department of National Defence for Canadian Armed Forces-operating expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: May the Chair draw to the attention of the House to a clerical item in notice of opposition No. 29. The second notice of opposition should have appeared under the name of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Not wishing in any way to cause the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) any difficulty, I think the rule is that once you vote, you cannot change it. I was under that impression.


John George Diefenbaker: I recall that in 1926 a Labour member for Nelson, Mr. Bird, went to sleep and voted. He woke up and realized he had voted and said he had made a mistake. If I recall, the Speaker of that day said "You only get one bite of the apple."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure it could not have been at 2.30 in the morning. It seemed to me that the situation was clear, but apparently it is not clear at all. To be very frank, the Chair was under the impression that when members of the official opposition voted, they were voting in opposition to the motion.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate that and recognize that it is 2.30 in the morning. I was just saying what I had thought, but obviously I was wrong. I think what the House would want to take for granted is that the vote registered by members of the official opposition was in favour of the yeas, and that the voting starting with the leader of the NDP were votes in opposition. The hon. member for York South is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Speaker, in view of that fact, I think the same privilege should be extended to others changing their minds about voting.


An hon. Member:: What minds?


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak to the point of order. Let me make it clear that the right hon. gentleman, the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), always has the courtesy when rising of saying he does not want to cause the hon. member for York South any trouble, and then proceeds to say what he has to say. I should like to inform him that I am sure he noticed, as others did, that I did not vote but rose to find out whether Your Honour had called the nays.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. My impression of the way the vote has been taken is the way I suggested. Otherwise I think it would be unfair to hon. members of the different parties voting either in support or in opposition to the motion. In any event, I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 30, in the amount of $5,075,000 of the Department of National Defence for civil emergency measures-program expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
[Mr. Speaker.)


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
June 22, 1972


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried on division. Motion agreed to.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 35, in the amount of $3,042,000 of the Department of National Defence for Defence Construction (1951) Limited-program expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried on division. Motion agreed to.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 1, in the amount of $7,758,000 of the Department of National Health and Welfare for administration-program expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried on division. Motion agreed to.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 5, in the amount of $4,698,000 of the Department of National Health and Welfare for non-medical use of drugs-program expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: On division.
Estimates


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried on division. Motion agreed to.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 10, in the amount of $3,575,000 of the Department of National Health and Welfare for health insurance and resources- operating expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973 (less the amounted voted in interim supply) be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried on division. Motion agreed to.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 20, in the amount of $51,538,000 of the Department of National Health and Welfare for medical services-program expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried on division. Motion agreed to.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 25, in the amount of $25,883,000 of the Department of National Health and Welfare for health protection-operating expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried on division. Motion agreed to.
*
COMMONS DEBATES___________________________________June 22, 1972
That vote 1, in the amount of $95,210,000 of the Department of National Revenue for Customs and Excise-program Expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
3432___________________________
Estimates
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 35, in the amount of $18,973,000 of the Department of National Health and Welfare for income security and social assistance-operating expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried on division. Motion agreed to.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 45, in the amount of $1,149,000 of the Department of National Health and Welfare for fitness and amateur sport-operating expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried on division. Motion agreed to.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 50, in the amount of $540,000 of the Department of National Health and Welfare for Medical Research Council-operating expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried on division. Motion agreed to.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: [Mr. Speaker.)


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 5, in the amount of $121,110,000 of the Department of National Revenue for taxation-program Expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31,1973 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried on division. Motion agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: The next item is number 42.


An hon. Member:: Bingo!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, item 42 is the one for the Senate, and we would like you to call the yeas and nays.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 1, in the amount of $3,923,470 of Parliament for the Senate-program Expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31,1973 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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

June 22, 1972


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we have been having some discussions and I wonder if we might not reach agreement on how to dispose of the remaining items up to and including No. 88. It has been suggested that we might deem to have carried all these items, with the exception of item No. 74, on division, and that on item No. 74 Your Honour would call the yeas and nays and, if desired, there could be a recorded division immediately. If that is a suitable arrangement I think we might all benefit from it at this moment.


John Angus MacLean: That is agreed, Mr. Speaker, and I would suggest it is assumed that the members are in and that we would not ring the bells for the recorded vote on motion No. 74.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We agree.


William Arnold Peters: Some of us do.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: June 22, 1972
Division


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motions 43 to 73 inclusive, and 75 to 88 inclusive, agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it further agreed, on the suggestion of the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean), that if a division is required on motion No. 74, the division will be taken without the necessity of ringing the bells?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is so ordered.



MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 25, DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES

Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 25, in the amount of $10,354,000 of the Department of Supply and Services for Information Canada-program Expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973 (less the amount voted in interim supply) be concurred in.


Mr. Deputy Speaicer:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order because of a ruling made earlier by the Chair to the effect that a member on this side of the House had walked in when the Chair was putting the vote, while at the same time the Chair failed to recognize that the same thing happened on the other side of the House. The Chair's attention was drawn to the fact that during the vote on No. 42 a member on the other side had left his seat. I think at that time there should have been a ruling, because the Chair was very well aware of the fact.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Donald MacInnis: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I have put a point of order before the Chair in which the Chair was very much aware of the situation, and according to Standing Order 12(2) the Speaker is obligated to do something about it in that he saw members on the other side and failed to recognize the same violation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Sit down!


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair would like to hear the hon. member.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I again draw your attention to Standing Order 12(2) and repeat that the rule was used in regard to a member from this side of the House while it was very obvious that violations were taking place on the other side of the House and during the vote on No. 42-


Mr. Duquet:: Every time you talk about the rules you are wrong.


An hon. Member:: Start all over again.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would think that hon. members would co-operate with the Chair and with the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis). In fairness to the hon. member, I think I should rule on this point of order but I am not in a position to do so until I hear the hon. member. I would ask hon. mem bers to hear the point of order.


An hon. Member:: Get it straight this time, Donnie.


Donald MacInnis: At the request of hon. members on the other side of the House, I will repeat it. Standing Order 12(2) has been violated, and the Speaker drew on that rule to remind a member from this side of the House who had to leave, while at the same time the same violation was
Estimates
taking place on the government side of the House. The Speaker's attention was drawn to that fact during the vote on No. 42 and Mr. Speaker should have ruled on the member from the government side as well as members of the opposition.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has asked me to rule on his point of order. I think he will understand, and I think all hon. members will understand, that I am in a position where I cannot rule because I do not have personal knowledge of the matter. I accept the hon. member's word but I am not in a position to rule because the matter to which the hon. member refers is not, in my consciousness, within my personal knowledge.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on another question of privilege. The privilege arises at this time because Your Honour's attention was fully drawn to the fact that this violation was taking place.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has indicated his concern on this point of order. I am not sure if he was referring to the vote which has just finished, when I heard a bit of disturbance in the House. I repeat that I have no personal knowledge that any hon. member has violated our Standing Orders. I must leave it at that.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1972, except those votes concurred in earlier this day, and less amounts voted in interim supply, be concurred in.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed to the said motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried on division.
Mr. Drury thereupon moved that Bill C-221, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the year ending March 31, 1973, be read the first time and be printed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the second time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.

Estimates
Mr. Drury thereupon moved that Bill C-221 lor granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money lor the public service lor the financial year ending March 31, 1973, be read the second time and relerred to the committee ol the whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Laniel in the chair.
Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 2 carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 2 agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 3 carry?
Clause 3 agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 4 carry?


André-Gilles Fortin: On division.
Clause 4 agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 5 carry?


André-Gilles Fortin: On division.
Clause 5 agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 6 carry?


André-Gilles Fortin: On division.
Clause 6 agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall the schedule carry?


André-Gilles Fortin: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 1 carry?


André-Gilles Fortin: On division.
Clause 1 agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall the preamble carry?


André-Gilles Fortin: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Gérald Laniel: Shall the title carry?


André-Gilles Fortin: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, before the bill is read the third time I should like to say that what we have done in passing almost $9 billion in estimates tonight is an indication that the present method of passing estimates is not satisfactory, in the opinion of many Members of Parliament. If some other arrangement for estimates is not made, a procedure such as took place tonight will have to be pursued, but other arrangements should be made so that hon. members can really control in a legislative way the expenditure of Canadian tax dollars.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time.


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: the third reading of the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


An hon. Member:: On division.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it. I declare the said bill carried on division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being after ten o'clock, this House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock this day.
At 3.06 a.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday. lune 23. 1972