1977-03-23

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Janies A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I am seeking the unanimous consent of the House under Standing Order 43. Yesterday in the United States House of Representatives a resolution was passed by a voice vote which, in the words of Dr. Arthur May, the Director General of Resource Services for Fisheries Environment Canada, had this to say: "The resolution was incredible and it was based on erroneous information supplied by anti-seal hunt protestors. I regret very much that the U.S. House did not see fit to advise itself on this issue. 1 would, therefore, move, with the unanimous consent of the House, seconded by the hon. member for Bonaventure-lles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard):
That this House supports the right of Canadians to hunt seals off Canada's east coast and further supports the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment for the steps he has taken to ensure that the hunt is strictly supervised and conducted in a humane manner with quotas based on the best scientific data available to ensure proper management and conservation of the herd.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The presentation of such a motion for debate pursuant to Standing Order 43 can only be done with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MANPOWER
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have been informed that the Cyprus Anvil Mining Corporation in Faro, Yukon has been given approval by Canada Manpower to recruit millwrights in the United States. It has been given this approval in spite of the fact that the availability of such positions has not been advertised or posted in any form in Canada Manpower Centres in such obvious places as Sydney,
Nova Scotia; Sudbury, Ontario; Hamilton, Ontario; and Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario.
Given the fact that more than a million Canadians are unemployed, and the related fact that these are jobs that should be available first to Canadians, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the House demands that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration take action immediately to stop the Cyprus Anvil Mining Corporation in Faro, Yukon from recruiting millwrights in the United States until the availability of positions for people with this skill is posted in manpower centres across Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Presentation of such a motion for debate pursuant to Standing Order 43 can only be done with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADA WORKS PROGRAM-CONDITIONS OF AGREEMENT WITH PROVINCES-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an important question of pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the provincial governments have a right of veto on projects submitted to the federal government under the Canada Works program and the Young Canada Works program without any financial contribution from the provinces to those programs, and considering that some vetoed projects cannot be carried out, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin):
That the House ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) to reveal the conditions under which those agreements about those programs have been concluded between the federal and provincial governments.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; the motion therefore cannot be put.

March 23, 1977
Energy


POST OFFICE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In recent days, members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers have been engaging in work stoppages in various parts of the country, including St. John's, Newfoundland, yesterday, protesting various violations of the current contract. In view of the detrimental effects these stoppages are having on an already seriously depressed economy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That the Postmaster General take the initiative in calling a meeting of union officials, Post Office officials, representatives of the Treasury Board and the Department of Labour to settle the irritants in labour-management relations in the Post Office which are at the root of the continuing disruption of Canada's postal service.


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


Some hon. Members:: No!


CO-OPERATION OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WITH PROVINCES IN DEVELOPMENT OF HYDRO RESOURCES-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. As approximately four years have passed since the OPEC countries ended the era of cheap energy, and since the situation in some parts of Canada has reached crisis proportions in terms of energy costs both for industrial and home consumption, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources bring forward new and definite development projects in conjunction with provinces such as Newfoundland which have great hydro resources so that those resources can be developed to the benefit of all Canadians and tied into a national power grid-measures which any far-sighted government would have long since completed.


Mr. Speaker:: A motion under Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House before it can be presented. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!
[Mr. Speaker.)


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the premier of Nova Scotia yesterday announced that the plans for a new steel complex in Cape Breton would not be feasible under current economic circumstances, and in view of the fact that the official labour force survey for February puts the unemployment rate in Cape Breton at 16.9 per cent, which means that the real rate of unemployment is probably nearer 22 per cent, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That this House urge the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion to press forward in co-operation with the Nova Scotia government to modernize the existing Sydney Steel Corporation, thus ensuring a stable work force.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion put forward under Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House before it can be presented. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Given the encouraging news that representatives of business and labour are now making a start on the establishment of a spirit of co-operation and consensus on national economic policy, might I ask the Prime Minister whether he intends to make provision for further consultation by bringing in some more permanent kind of mechanism which more broadly represents economic groups in the country?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as we indicated last fall in the government publication called "The Way Ahead", we intend to continue and expand these consultations and reach an increasing number of spokesmen for the various aspects of the economic decision-making.


Charles Joseph Clark: I take it from the Prime Minister's answer that there is no intention to establish any mechanism which will regularly and broadly represent the wide range of persons concerned about economic policy. Is that right?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: At this stage we do not intend to establish a formal mechanism. We intend to proceed with the kind of consultations which have been going on and to expand them. Ultimately we will see whether these consultations can be formalized in a more precise way.
March 23, 1977


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM PLANS FOR TERMINATING CONTROLS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Charles Joseph Clark: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Could the minister tell the House whether, as a result of meetings which he called "an historic event", he will give the House of Commons now the assurance that was asked of him yesterday by representatives of business and labour that his budget proposals will not prevent the government from terminating controls at the earliest opportunity?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I was not able to give that assurance yesterday but I took account of that representation. As the hon. gentleman knows, many others in the country-including, I think it is fair to say, a majority of the provincial governments-have asked that the control program not be brought to an end at an early date. Naturally, I will have to weigh these two different representations and try to achieve some compromise between them. I think it is important in the course of the economic statement in the budget that we should give some indication of the timing on the control program, and we are now giving reflection to the ways in which we might meet the rather conflicting objectives stated by two different important groups in the community.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: My question is for the Prime Minister. Reports from yesterday's meeting indicate that business and labour representatives present there were willing to accept voluntary restraints on their own economic demands in the earnest hope that controls might end as soon as possible. Would the Prime Minister indicate whether business and labour in turn asked the government for similar restraint commitments, especially on a long-term basis and, if so, what assurances were given by the government that the government would take a smaller share of our gross national product?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, yesterday this subject was not raised, nor was it raised by the representatives of business and labour, but at previous meetings, particularly through the President of the Treasury Board, we have indicated the progress we have made in the past to limit expenditures. We would appreciate it if the opposition parties would themselves show restraint on the spending estimates of the government.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: My supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday both the business and labour representatives informed the Prime Minister and other ministers present
Oral Questions
that in their view the marketplace works well. Does the Prime Minister agree with their assessment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Relatively.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM METHOD OF TERMINATING CONTROLS
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance. As controls could be dropped suddenly or by stages and as the Minister of Finance stated yesterday that he suspected that the preference of business and labour representatives was, to use his words, a "put out the lights" approach-something, I think, with which the government feels quite at home-can the minister say whether, as a result of this meeting, the government now favours a "one shot" end to controls rather than a decontrols period when controls would be phased down bit by bit?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We will be dealing with that question among others in the course of the budgetary statement.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the fact that the premier of Nova Scotia last night announced from London, England, that there would be a delay in the construction of a new steel mill in Cape Breton until well into the future, would the minister tell the House, in view of the tremendous unemployment problem in the Cape Breton area, what special plans his department has to help the extremely serious situation now facing the Sydney steel plant?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, it is obvious that since the project under study concerning the construction of a new steel plant has been delayed until much later, it will of course be necessary to consider more closely the proposals which will be put forward to maintain the operations of SYSCO and possibly to increase them. Of course, I will have to consult my officials and pursue our negotiations and discussions with the SYSCO officials. But I repeat that it will be necessary to wait for proposals and, as I said yesterday, we are prepared to consider them favourably.

March 23, 1977
Oral Questions


Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, I appeal to the minister to be more specific. He has been studying this thing for over a year and a half. Over the last two years I have been attending the meetings of the Standing Committee on Regional Development and bringing up this matter. What are the minister's suggestions? We are facing a situation in which we are having a-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a supplementary question, would he put it forthwith.


Andrew Hogan: Would the minister please give us something more specific regarding the government's plans for employment in the Sydney Steel industry? He has had lots of time to study it.
[ Translation]


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that SYSCO is a corporation under the jurisdiction of the provincial government which is responsible for the administration. I will certainly have to wait for proposals from the directors of this corporation as well as from the provincial government before I can decide what kind of assistance my department and the federal government might offer.


STUDY OF USE OF Q-BOP TECHNOLOGY FOR RENOVATION OF SYDNEY STEEL PLANT-REQUEST FOR TABLING
Andrew Hogan: The minister's answer suggested that the province of Nova Scotia has made no suggestions to him as yet, and in turn, his department has made no suggestions on how to correct this situation. Will the minister please tell the House if the special study on the use of Q-BOP technology to help renovate the present Sydney plant, which was done by members of the United States Steel Corporation with the support of DREE funds, has been received by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, and will he table it in the House?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, this study is almost completed. We hope to get information on the proposed technology and when we know the real value and possibilities of the use of this technology I will probably be willing, with the usual authorization, to reveal the result of this study to the hon. member and to the House.


CANADA-QUEBEC AGREEMENT-CONSTRUCTION OF HIGHWAY FROM GROS-CACOUNA TO MONT-JOLI-PROGRESS OF NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.

Could the minister advise the House of any new development in connection with the Canada-Quebec agreement for the completion of the highway from Gros-Cacouna to Mont-Joli?


Marcel Lessard: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I can advise the hon. member that I have received from Mr. Leonard, my Quebec counterpart, the proposals which he intends to discuss with me within the next few weeks or days. I received these proposals on Monday, Mr. Speaker.


REGULATIONS FOR OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION IN THE NORTH-DATE OF INTRODUCTION
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Last Thursday the minister tabled two studies on oil and natural gas resources of Canada-I am glad to see that the hon. gentleman has resumed his seat-and a summary of "An Energy Strategy for Canada". The conclusions were that the cost of energy is going to climb alarmingly in the future, that it is going to be very difficult and expensive for Canada to achieve energy self-sufficiency and that the bulk of our potential in Canada lies in three frontier regions where it is expensive and difficult to explore and develop.
It is a fact that exploration in these frontier areas north of the 60th parallel has declined at least 50 per cent since 1973 because of a lack of certainty regarding legislation and regulations. When will the minister introduce to parliament, as promised for six years, new legislation concerning oil and gas land regulations to reduce uncertainty by providing a stable fiscal and land tenure system, and will these regulations contain conditions aimed at accelerating exploration activity by giving incentives to the industry to pursue high-risk activity in those frontier areas?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I hope we will be introducing the legislation for those regulations in the very near future, but let me make it quite clear that if provinces such as the province of Newfoundland adopt measures which are more stringent than the regulations we have put forward and which would discourage a massive $60 million program planned for this year, that will have a serious affect on oil and natural gas exploration activities in Canada. I can understand why the hon. member who put that question to me might be sensitive on that issue because he was the author of the set of regulations which is very likely going to cut off $60 million worth of exploration this coming year.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman's smart-ass answer-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
March 23, 1977


Mr. Speaker:: Order please, the hon. member for Central Nova.


FEDERAL PLANS FOR CO-OPERATION WITH PROVINCES IN DEVELOPMENT OF HYDRO RESOURCES
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Since some provinces such as Newfoundland have immense hydro resources which lie idle because these provinces cannot afford to fully develop them, and since the country desperately requires additional hydro development in order to alleviate an energy crisis and to facilitate the longstanding need for a national power grid, will the minister indicate briefly when he plans to bring forward a comprehensive program that would encourage these provincial resources to be developed for the benefit of all Canadians?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, that program has been brought forward and it has been discussed with the Premier of Newfoundland. It has been put to him that we are prepared to consider a number of new opportunities with respect to the financing of the generation, as well as the transmission, of that hydro development. Quite frankly, we cannot go any faster than we are going right now. We are waiting for him.


REASON FOR REDUCTION IN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S CONTRIBUTION TO COST OF TRANSMISSION LINES
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that ten years ago during the halcyon years when the government was preaching self-sufficiency it was their policy, for example, to pay 100 per cent of the cost of transmission facilities, will the minister now tell the House why this government in the midst of an energy crisis will finance only half the cost of new inter-connections which could encourage this country to increase its renewable energy supplies? Will he take steps to look into this type of project in conjunction with the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I would urge the hon. member who sits on the other side of the House as a Conservative to speak to the Premier of Newfoundland, who is also a Conservative, and urge him and his colleagues to move forward on this quickly. On the second point, it might be helpful if the hon. member were to convince his own leader that if it were not for Petro-Canada drilling off the Nova Scotia shelf, this year there would be no drilling activity at all.


An hon. Member:: That is not true.


An hon. Member:: That is nonsense.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I simply ask the minister when we can expect on this side of the House and in the country to see some concrete plans? So far it has
Oral Questions
been all swank and no knickers as far as power development is concerned.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the genial Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and arises out of the odyssey of Mercator One, that curious cruise ship owned by the taxpayers of Canada and Nova Scotia through Metropolitan Area Growth Investments, a vessel registered in the Bahamas to avoid some Canadian taxation and now on a trans-Atlantic cruise from London to Bermuda for maintenance before sailing in Canadian waters, crewed by people from Thailand. Could the minister say whether the federally appointed directors of MAGI approve that its efforts so far have been devoted to the interests of keeping down unemployment in Thailand, keeping up the revenues in Bermuda and the Bahamas? Cannot this vessel ever really become Canadian?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to say that I appreciate the good word of the hon. member. As to the content of his question, what I can say about the decision of the board of MAGI is, I suppose, that it has been based on good information, so they had to proceed with that proposal. What happened after that when some decision was made by the administrators of the Mercator company is something I cannot comment on at this point.


Robert Jardine McCleave: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In the interests of my province, would the minister please make some effort to see that they at least serve Nova Scotia apple juice on the tables of this cruise ship?


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Communications relates to Bill C-43 which was given first reading yesterday. Since all royal commissions on broadcasting, parliamentary committees and federal proposals contained in the green and grey papers on communications policy insist on the fundamental principle of a coherent and consistent communications policy, national in scope, can the minister please tell the House how the power given to her to make individual and possibly different agreements with the provinces can have this result?

March 23, 1977
Oral Questions


Hon. Jeanne Sauv6 (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member speaks as though we could not achieve coherence and consistency while ensuring a certain amount of diversity. The bill I introduced in the House yesterday takes precisely into account this great Canadian diversity, the various needs of some regions, and provides a certain amount of flexibility on the part of the federal government to meet and satisfy the needs and aspirations of the provinces.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since even the Prime Minister, in a letter to the chairman of the CRTC on the specific problem of reporting and balance in CBC programming asked the chairman to comment about the advisability of setting up a royal commission on broadcasting to look into this question, and how it is to be carried out, at this time when we are trying to pull this diverse country together, can the minister explain if the powers given to her to make independent and possibly different agreements with ten other provinces will emasculate the CRTC, the national authority which is supposed to define national service, or make the minister the czarina of communications? How can they hope to pull the country together?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That seems to me to touch on a rather general question of policy, the answer to which might be a bit lengthier than can be allowed in the question period.


MANPOWER
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Is the minister aware that at a time when literally hundreds of thousands of Canadians are unemployed his department has given the Cyprus Anvil Corporation in the Yukon permission to recruit employees in the United States?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of that. The general policy of the department is to do a screening across Canada first, to determine if there are people in that category to take jobs in those areas. If Canadians do not move into that area, only in those circumstances would we employ people from outside the country. However, prior to any representation I will look into the matter, to see if the policy was violated in this instance.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I thought the minister might say that, Mr. Speaker. I should like him to know that this department in Ottawa said yesterday that the decision was reached only after exhaustive steps were taken to find employees in Canada. Considering that these positions were not advertised or posted in any manpower

centre in the following steel communities, Sydney, Sudbury, Hamilton and Sault Ste. Marie, where one might have found Canadians looking for such work, will the minister, given this information, take steps to bring this practice to a stop immediately?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member did a little research and discovered that, seemingly, our research was not as exhaustive as it might have been, but I would rather check with my officials before commenting further.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Secretary of State about the CBC French and English programming in northern New Brunswick, especially in the area of Baie des Chaleurs. [English]
In view of the many petitions, briefs and representations made by the citizens of that region over the years concerning the lack of CBC radio in French and English, can the minister give some assurance to the House as to what action he may take with CBC officials in order to bring about 100 per cent CBC radio programming to that part of Canada?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have received the representation of the hon. member. I shall bring it to the attention of CBC officials.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture? Since on February 18 alone 5,000 pounds of margarine, destined to be sold as butter, was intercepted and confiscated at Cornwall, Ontario, I ask if the minister is working directly with the ministry of agriculture in Ontario, and what progress has been made so far with regard to this interprovincial fraud whereby margarine is being sold as butter in the province of Ontario? Has the minister anything to report to the House on this matter?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker,
I met the minister of agriculture of Ontario in my office in Ottawa last Monday morning. We discussed the problem with some of his officials. In the past they have prosecuted such offenders. We do not become involved in this area unless it is proven that the commodity crosses provincial borders. We are told that there is no federal involvement in the matter at this
March 23, 1977

time, but if anybody has any idea who these people are, and how they are doing it, we should like to hear from him.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my supplementary question either to the Minister of Agriculture or to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs? I want to make it clear that in my questions of today and of last week I make no charges vis-a-vis butter producers in the province of Ontario.


An hon. Member:: You can't have it both ways, Heward.


William Heward Grafftey: Are federal regulations presently being considered with regard to the production of margarine, in order to prevent unscrupulous manufacturers from making it look like butter?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. member for larding into his question my name. 1 think the Minister of Agriculture is competent in this area and 1 should leave the answer to him.


REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR RESEARCH ON RENEWABLE SOURCES OF ENERGY
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Since this year the United States will spend approximately $1.60 per capita on renewable energy development, compared to a token .35 cents per capita in Canada, when will the government announce serious measures to either reduce or eliminate this disturbing research gap in such critical technology for the future? If the government is unable to do so at the present time, is it prepared to make sizable shifts in research funding away from nuclear development into renewable energy development?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I would think that the hon. member would realize the government is already moving in that direction. Indeed, if he were to work out the per capita investment in his province, he would find that it is far greater than that of the United States. The investment which the federal government is making in Prince Edward Island, for the benefit of Prince Edward Island, is also expected to be of great benefit to Canadians all across Canada.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, while we appreciate the concern of the department and its contribution to the
Oral Questions
development of renewable energy in Prince Edward Island, even I would not say that Prince Edward Island is the whole of Canada. Since the United States is committed to providing 7 per cent of its own energy requirements from solar energy by the year 2000, can the minister indicate in what way he is assisting Canadian industry generally, especially in the poorer regions, to take advantage of opportunities created by solar energy, to make certain that we do not lose the opportunity to make this development available to other countries and do not fall behind in our own technological development?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, 1 just pointed out to the hon. member that the Canadian government's investment in Prince Edward Island works out to about $20 per capita in Prince Edward Island.


OIL-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE DOMESTIC PRICE DOES NOT EXCEED UNITED STATES PRICE
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources concerns oil prices, which will be going up by as much as $2 per barrel, depending upon who wins the argument at the forthcoming energy ministers conference. Will the minister tell the House whether it is the policy of the government to ensure Canadian oil prices do not exceed the U.S. equivalent of $11.24 a barrel?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, we have been very careful in approaching higher prices for Canada consistent with our policy of moving toward world prices to maintain a position where the Canadian well-head price, delivery price and transportation do not exceed that in the United States. At the present time, my estimate is that there would be room for better than a $2 increase in a barrel of oil effective July 1 and still keep Canadian oil prices below U.S. oil prices.


OIL-POSSIBILITY OF GREATER RETURNS TO INDUSTRYMONITORING OF USE OF TAX INCENTIVES
Stan Darling: Will the minister tell the House whether, in light of the drilling fiasco in the north, he intends to increase the proportion of the increase netted back to the industry and, in addition, whether he has monitored the use by the industry of existing tax incentives.


Alastair William Gillespie: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We are monitoring the tax incentives, more particularly the cash flow generated from higher prices which is being used by the industry. I indicated in the House we expect to table information in the House on the matter in a few weeks' time.

March 23, 1977
Oral Questions


ALLEGATION RESOURCE QUESTION DELAYING SETTLEMENT OF BOUNDARY OF GEORGES BANK-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON PENOBSCOT B-41
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In light of the fact that the mineral, oil and gas potential in the gray area on Georges Bank off Nova Scotia is holding up the resolution of the boundary question between Canada and the United States, what steps is the minister taking to help resolve this matter? Second, can the minister bring the House up to date on the results of the well drilled 175 miles southeast of Halifax, named Penobscot B-41, which was reported as showing significant hydrocarbons which hopefully will be the first economic oil well on the east coast?


Alastair William Gillespie: On the first part of the question with respect to Georges Bank, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the hydrocarbons question is the problem interfering with a settlement time. The hon. member may want to address his further supplementaries on this question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
With regard to the Penobscot well and the potential of that, it is still too early to say. It is not down to full depth. Indications have been reported in the press that petroleum has been found. I checked yesterday. I was told that was a premature statement, that one would have to wait another week or so before there would be any firm information.


GASOLINE-SUGGESTED ELIMINATION OF SALES TAX IN NORTHERN REGIONS
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources as well. In view of the extraordinarily high price that consumers have to pay for gasoline in the northern portions of the western provinces, indeed across northern Canada, will the minister lend his support to the idea of dropping the 12 cent federal sales tax on gasoline in those regions of high cost?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is quite aware that kind of question should be put to the Minister of Finance.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Will the minister now tell the House if he has examined the report by the Arctic Waters Oil and Gas Advisory Committee and, if so, what conclusions he has drawn?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen this report.


Douglas Charles Neil: In view of the lead-time necessary for Canmar to prepare for the summer drilling season, will the minister indicate whether he will be in a position to announce his decision on the matter by the end of this month?


William Warren Allmand: I would hope to, Mr. Speaker.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. Since the annual report of Canada Post for the year ended March 31, 1976, received only today, shows that the post office spent $1.96 for every $1 it took in during that fiscal year compared to $1.52 for each $1 of revenue in the preceding fiscal year, largely because total revenues were off 8 per cent, indicating substantial loss of volume, which policies does the minister expect to implement to recover lost business, by improving services or to reduce costs in keeping with the reduced volume?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Mr. Speaker, the policy that we are adopting is to try to increase the volume and thereby increase revenue. One of the ways we are attempting to do that is by establishing labour peace within the post office.


HOUSING
Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
Since the former Quebec minister of municipal affairs never did sign the agreement concerning section 44(1 )(b) of the National Housing Act which would have allowed non-profit organizations to provide low-cost housing and encourage the acceleration of urban renovation, especially in Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, can the Minister tell the House whether he had the opportunity to meet Mr. Guy Tardif, the new Minister of Municipal Affairs since the election of the new government in Quebec? If so, did he raise that question and what are the results? If not, when will he do so?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. Indeed I met briefly with Mr. Tardif soon after his appointment as Quebec minister of municipal affairs, but I hope I will soon have the pleasure to
March 23, 1977

meet him more formally and for a longer period of time. 1 am quite prepared to work closely with him so as to come to grips with housing problems in Quebec. As suggested by the hon. member, 1 will not fail to raise the question of section 44(1 )(b) designed particularly for that part of the population of Quebec which most needs decent housing.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Miss Coline Campbell (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the government's concern over the potential elimination of competition arising from the merger of large interests and the possible effect of such mergers on the competitive position of small operators, as is evidenced by the establishment some years ago of the royal commission on corporate concentration and the minister's recent tabling of the new competition bill, will the minister undertake to look into the announcement last week of the takeover of National Sea Products and any other corporate relationships that may be significant to this merger from the point of view of the preservation of competition in the fishing industry?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her very accurate reflection of my interest and that of the government in improving the competition policy, particularly as it affects mergers. I can say that under the possibly inadequate law that we labour under today, a merger of this dimension would automatically be reviewed by the Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act. If it were seen that the merger appeared to be in conflict with the provisions of that act, he would order an inquiry.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Since the beef cattle marketing board has been soundly defeated in Manitoba with Manitoba cattle producers showing little interest in what for cattle producers would be economic nonsense, is the minister prepared to call off a so-called speaking tour to promote a national beef marketing plan and devote his time and the taxpayer's money to more pressing and important matters here in Ottawa?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, coming from good old Tory Ontario where they have the oldest
Oral Questions
and best marketing boards in Canada, I cannot help but be impressed with what they have done for agriculture. As far as the Manitoba beef plan is concerned, I did not have anything to do with that. They were proposing a plan and put it forward to their beef producers. 1 said I would never force in a marketing board for beef producers. Anyone who says that I would is not telling the truth. The farmers would have to express the opinion to me that they want a beef marketing plan and I would have to find out if there was one suitable for them.
I would have it put to a vote only then. I said there must be a better marketing system for beef and I still say that.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question, though it is rather like throwing water on an old hen. Does a 77 per cent rejection of a beef marketing plan in Manitoba now convince the Minister of Agriculture to stop this nonsense of calling for a national plan?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I can be a little more than impressed by the great Tory province of Alberta which as recently as last year voted for a poultry marketing plan to the tune of over 80 per cent and in Tory Ontario where they voted for it 89 per cent, whereas most provinces in Canada are asking me at the present time to set up a broiler marketing board.


EGGS-EFFECT ON SMALL PRODUCERS OF IMPORTS FROM UNITED STATES-EXTENSION OF TIME PERIOD FOR CEMA TO CONSIGN EGGS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish now to switch to eggs and to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he would investigate and take appropriate action on reports in Ontario that some large integrated companies are undercutting small producers by importing large amounts of eggs from the United States, which Ontario industry leaders fear will mean the domination of the Ontario market by two or three large producers within five years?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, this matter was reported to me and I had discussions about it on Monday again with the provincial minister of agriculture for Ontario who expressed deep concern. I maintain that at the present time this is mainly within the jurisdiction of the provincial marketing boards. It is a question of how they administer the provincial plan to let these large producers get control of the quotas in the various provinces, allowing them, as the hon. member has suggested, probably to get total control of egg production unless something is done about it.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. One of the reasons large producers can get control of the market is that CEMA has only some 48 hours to locate and to consign eggs to companies. About six weeks ago CEMA asked for an extension of that 48 hour time period. I should like to ask the minister whether or not he is going to grant an extension of that period so that orderly marketing can work well, as it does in many other areas?

March 23, 1977
Oral Questions


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I think in many cases we are spending much too much money outside of Canada on a product that we can produce in Canada. We are looking at the exact demand for the product the hon. member is talking about.


MANPOWER
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to my hon. friend, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that the minister consistently denigrates the quality and the uses of job vacancy statistics published by Statistics Canada, would the minister tell the House whether his own department, the Department of Manpower and Immigration, has any statistics of its own which record the number of job vacancies registered with Canada Manpower Centres at a given point in time, and, if so, would the minister offer the House the latest figure available?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I do not denigrate the survey as such. I denigrate the use made of it. The job vacancy survey indicates the number of jobs that are available at any given point in time. They indicate a trend rather than the number of job vacancies that are available.
In reply to the second part of the hon. member's question, the Canada Manpower Centres place about a million people per year, participate in the filling of 25 to 35 per cent of all vacancies, and at the end of any given month some 100,000 job vacancies are available through CMC's. So we do have that kind of statistic, Mr. Speaker.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for his unusual frankness for a change. Would the minister undertake to table this week in the House, if at all possible, or as soon as he can-unless these data are secret, of course-the number of vacancies registered with Canada Manpower Centres at the end of the each of the last 24 months? I should like to add that personally I am looking forward to seeing these figures and the minister's face thereafter.


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


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Well, Mr. Speaker, I did ask the minister a question and would like an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The information sought by the hon. member ought to be sought in another way. He is asking for information that extends back over 24 months.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I would appreciate it if the minister would give me an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Lotbiniere.

[ Translation]


INCOME TAX
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue.
My question relates to the one I asked yesterday. The minister, I believe, realizes its significance since it deals with truck drivers who are not working for a company whose main activity is transportation.
Is the minister prepared to extend the scope of information circular No. 7321R2 which deals only with truck drivers working for transportation companies, in order to allow all truck drivers having the same working conditions to enjoy the same advantages under the Income Tax Act?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I have read the question the hon. member asked yesterday and unfortunately I am obliged to answer that my department does not intend to change the provision of the law under which actual expenses incurred, or $3 a meal, may be deducted against their income by full time truck drivers. The hon. member is referring to employees who are occasionally driving trucks for their employer. They are then eligible for the $150 overall deduction for which receipts are not needed, or have to be covered by negotiations between themselves or their representatives and their employer directly.


André-Gilles Fortin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Without prejudice to the minister, I think she has misunderstood my question. I am not referring to part time truckers but to those who are working full time for Golden Eagle in Quebec City or for Esso Imperial, for example, whose main activities are related to oil and which need full time truckers to ensure the transportation and distribution of their oil products. These truckers are victims of the discrimination I have been referring to and that is why I am asking the minister to extend the scope of circular 7321R2 so these people may benefit from that deduction.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, as defined in the circular of April 21, 1976 mentioned by the hon. member, these workers are allowed this deduction. Since the hon. member has mentioned the name of the company involved, I will investigate this case as soon as possible.
March 23, 1977


WHEAT-LACK OF SHIPMENTS FROM NORTHEASTERN SASKATCHEWAN-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. Since wheat prices have fallen dramatically and the final payment amounted only to about one cent a bushel in many cases for certain grades, many points in northeastern Saskatchewan have not shipped any grain at all since last October. EIow long do these farmers have to squirm before they get any boxcars?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that while in one or two cases a final payment as low as two cents was the case, other payments as high as 22 cents and in some cases of barley over $1 were made. Prices have improved at the moment but that has nothing to do with the hon. member's question. Early movement of grain had to be arranged by the Canadian Wheat Board which was particularly heavy from southern areas where high protein grain was available. This year's crop was significantly lower in protein in many areas than had been ordinarily expected, and as a result heavy reliance on southern areas was required at the beginning. As for the rest of the prairie region they can expect rapid movement of grain as the situation there has now caught up as the lower protein values are required.


Stanley James Korchinski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since many of these farmers have never been able to make use of the quota which was available on barley and this quota has now been terminated, and since many of these farmers cannot take advantage of the temporarily high prices for rapeseed, can these farmers be assured that they will get immediate attention and that a few of the 1,000 cars which are presently being shipped will be sent to that area immediately, prior to any large scale movement from that area?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Wheat Board-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: He is still suffering from jet lag.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: It is time Otto went to the Senate.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I trust that was parliamentary! The Wheat Board, of course, attempts to put the cars in the zones where there has been a small amount of movement. If the hon. member is suggesting that some farmers have had no delivery opportunity and had their quotas terminated in the usual way, I am sure that they and their elevator agents know that they simply have to contact the Canadian Wheat Board, and if that is the case special steps are taken.
Oral Questions


REASON FOR FAILURE TO CLEAR ELEVATORS IN SASKATCHEWAN AND ALBERTA PRIOR TO FREEZE UP OF GREAT LAKES
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the fact that there has been a policy decision change affecting Saskatchewan and east central Alberta to ship grain to the port of Thunder Bay, which is frozen up for a good part of the year, thus causing a great deal of congestion in that part of the prairies, could the minister give some justification for why those country elevators were not cleared out last fall, resulting in being solidly congested throughout all of the winter months and preventing farmers from moving their grain?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should appreciate that until the crop is harvested the Wheat Board may not know exactly from what areas they have to draw particular kinds of grain, and therefore from time to time there will be temporary difficulty in regard to movement. No forward planning could have assured the Wheat Board that low protein wheat would be found in most regions of the prairie provinces, and accordingly different steps had to be taken as soon as that fact was known.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) yesterday raised, by way of a point of order, a question concerning the language used during the question period by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) which was reported at page 4199 of Hansard, of March 22, 1977, as follows:
That compliments exactly the deceit of the right hon. gentleman in appearing to imply here in the House .. .
The use of unparliamentary language is a practice that has long been held to be disorder in the House. The attitude of the Chair is that, when in doubt in terms of the interpretation of a term, it is always best to err on the side of asking an hon. member who has used language in the heat of the moment to withdraw it in order to uphold the dignity of the practices of the House.
In this particular case it may give the House some indication of the difficulty in these particular matters to say that in examining the precedents, in preparation for having to make a decision on this matter, it comes down to so fine a distinction as a situation in the past when the word "deception" was used, and was held and defended as not being an unparliamentary word. The question, therefore, becomes: is there sufficient distinction between the word "deception" and the word "deceit" to permit the one and disallow the other? In my considered opinion, upon examining dictionary definitions ordinarily attributed to the use of the word "deceit", that is so. The word "deception" does not have the same connotation as the word "deceit".
"Deceit" is ordinarily defined as follows:
The action or practice of deceiving; concealment of the truth in order to mislead; deception, fraud, cheating.

March 23, 1977
Privilege-Mr. Corbin
All of those fall within the ambit of expressions ordinarily held to be out of order in the Elouse. In the circumstances I would prefer to resolve the matter in favour of asking if the Minister of Transport, having used that term yesterday in the heat of the moment, might withdraw it.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have looked at the words and have seen Your Honour's difficulty in view of the fact that the word "deceit" has also been used to mean trickery. I have noted that according to May the word "calumnious", which means full of tricks, has been held to be parliamentary. I see the great difficulties. I am not going to stand on any position, having regard to the suggestion from Your Honour, and I will withdraw the word. I did use the word earlier in relation to the right hon. gentlemen outside the House, and I suppose I need not withdraw that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: Not very gracious, Otto.


Otto Emil Lang: I will also find other ways to describe the right hon. gentleman's conduct.


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning a verbal exchange which took place last night when the hon. member for Pro-vencher (Mr. Epp) was speaking to the opposition motion on supply. May I be allowed to relate the incident briefly, inasmuch as I am concerned in its real context.
As reported in the Commons Hansard on page 4239, the hon. member for Provencher quoted an article published in the Toronto Star for last Saturday and entitled "Trudeau Faces Revolt by MPs over Jobs Bill". Here is the first quotation of the hon. member for Provencher:
The Trudeau government faces a backbench rebellion if it insists on pushing through a bill to make it even tougher...


John Edward Broadbent: I don't believe it!


Eymard G. Corbin: ... make it even tougher for jobless Canadians to get unemployment insurance benefits.
At that point, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Provencher was interrupted by my colleague, the hon. member for North-umberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne), as well as by a call to order by your distinguished representative, the Acting Speaker.
The hon. member for Provencher resumed his remarks quoting the second paragraph of the Star article, which was reproduced in yesterday's Hansard, and I quote:
The government could fall if Newfoundland M.P. David Rooney gets the four other Atlantic Liberals he says are also opposed to the bill to join him in voting against it.

After a second call to order by the Acting Speaker, the hon. member for Provencher went back to his quotation from the Star, as follows:
... The five, he says ...
-still according to Mr. Rooney-
... have agreed that the bill is unacceptable to them in its present form.
The hon. member for Provencher then skipped four paragraphs in the article in question then quoted as follows:
Rooney says four other Liberal maritimers support him in opposing the bill. Liberal maritimers include ...


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Epp:: They include Rompkey, Breau, Corbin and Maurice Dionne.
At this time, I rose on a point of order to say:
The hon. member has deliberately misled the House by misquoting that newspaper article, and I wish he would read it as written.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, when I read Hansard today, I discovered that the hon. member was not even quoting the article when he named me and three of my colleagues. As shown in Hansard, later in the evening I withdrew the statement in which I accused the hon. member for Provencher of having deliberately misled the House. I also withdrew without any reservation whatever my second statement that the hon. member had lied.
In order to remove any doubt from the hon. member's mind and from the mind of any hon. member in the House, I reiterate what I said yesterday evening and, once again, I make apologies to all hon. members for having been carried away at that time in the heat of the debate. I am the first to recognize that those kinds of interventions lead nowhere except to lessen the respect we should all have for this institution and particularly for the Chair.
However, Mr. Speaker, there still is a question pending for which I did not obtain any satisfaction whatsoever and since it could not come to a satisfying conclusion last night, I would want it to be debated now because I feel I have been unfairly named and attacked by the hon. member for Provencher who credited me with intentions by quoting ny name out of context. Two retractations on my part do not excuse his unjustified attack against my colleagues and me. I maintain that he has used at random a newspaper article to draw a conclusion out of context. In all fairness, it seems to me-and I may be mistaken-that he should have quoted the rest of the paragraph which was nothing else but a list of all Liberal backbenchers of the Atlantic area. To support my case, I quote the article:

Liberal maritime members include William Rompkey of Labrador;
Apparently that is a new province, according to the Star.
Herbert Breau, Eymard Corbin, Maurice Dionne, Maurice Harquail and Michael Landers of New Brunswick; Coline Campbell of Nova Scotia, and George Baker of Newfoundland.

The Toronto Star was only giving the list of all Liberal back-benchers from the Atlantic area: it is very clear! However
March 23, 1977

the hon. member for Provencher who was standing yesterday evening with a photocopy of the Star article gave only four of those names, and out of context I quote Hansard, page 4239, right column:


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Now, with regard to the motion, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said we were not united. Well, when we get down to the bottom of this article we read:
Then, the hon. member quoted the Star
Rooney says four other Liberal maritimers support him in opposing the bill. Liberal maritimer members include-
And there was an interruption and Mr. Epp continued, and I quote:
They include Rompkey, Breau, Corbin, and Maurice Dionne.
This was the assertion of the hon. member for Provencher, and he resumed his seat.
Mr. Speaker, we can all judge from the facts. On one hand, we have the text of the newspaper that I quoted correctly and on the other hand, the assertion of the hon. member for Provencher, out of context, that seems to impute certain intentions to the hon. members mentioned by him. He has no right to impute intentions; that is our personal business. It seems that such assertions out of context are inflammatory and unworthy of the hon. member and absolutely unfair to my colleagues whose names have been mentioned. The Star did not go that far. It does not matter if 1 support or not the comments of the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Concep-tion (Mr. Rooney) and 1 urge hon. members to read the rest of that article. They might change their mind.
Yesterday evening I asked the hon. member for Provencher to reflect during the night on his comments and I ask him now in all friendliness to offer excuses to all my colleagues whom he mentioned and who had no connection at all with the article he had in hand. I was very frank with him and I wish he were the same with us.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question of privilege which the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) raises today regarding the exchange which took place in the House last night-those of us who have checked Hansard will have noticed that it was a very lively debate, I imagine parliament lived last night-the hon. member indicated I had indulged in activities which were not parliamentary and that 1 should withdraw. After a number of exchanges, the hon. member, as reported on page 4240, at the bottom of the first column of that page, withdrew certain remarks-I will read his words so that there will be no question about them.


Eymard G. Corbin: It could well be that in the heat of debate I got carried away, and I will withdraw, without any reservation whatever, words I used when I referred to the hon. member a second time, and I will go so far as to withdraw the statement that the hon. member is deliberately misleading the House.
At that time, when I had my first opportunity to respond, I said:
Privilege-Mr. Corbin
Well, Mr. Speaker, as a gentleman I accept what the hon. member says, but frankly 1 still reserve my position on the word he used. I want to see what Hansard says. I am not saying it was deliberately misleading but he did not withdraw the word he used.
Having read Hansard this morning, on the first part of his argument I accept his withdrawal and his apology as a gentleman. I have discussed the matter with other members in my caucus. We felt the withdrawal yesterday was unequivocal so we accept it.
As to the second part, I do not see how it is a question of privilege at all. First of all, I was not quoting out of context, I was quoting out of the Toronto Star. Maybe it is the same thing.


An hon. Member:: It is a Liberal paper.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: What I was trying to point out yesterday, was simply this: that a number of members on the government side had said this party was divided, so I thought it was about time some of us showed that on the other side of the House there was division within their own ranks on legislation which has been tabled by their own government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: It is quite evident that there is deep division on the bill in question. It was that division 1 was showing to the House, and it was their sensitivities that I was getting to.


Walter David Baker: It was underscored today.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: It was underscored today on a national television program by the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Concep-tion (Mr. Rooney), who indicated that not only was he opposed to the bill but that the bill should be torn up and thrown into the waste basket.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I do not see how that is a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I had no intention of misleading the House as to what the Star said, and if the hon. member and the other members I mentioned as being opposed to the bill are, in fact, not opposed to the bill, I would think they could rise in the House and say they will be supporting it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Mada-waska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) has raised by way of a question of privilege what seems, on the face of it at least, to be essentially a disagreement between himself and the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp).
I received notice from the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria prior to the sitting today. I have not had an opportunity to examine the specific language used. In any case, the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Madawas-ka-Victoria does not have attached to it a motion which would require action by the Chair. It would seem to relate, if some imputations had been made, to a question of order which

March 23, 1977
Privilege-Mr. Corbin
might have been taken up at the time. Certainly, the matter was raised at the time and the Chair directed its attention to it. If any disorder took place at that time, that is behind us, and it seems to me no remedial action can be taken now.
If a question of privilege did arise following inaccurate references on the part of the hon. member for Provencher, it is difficult for me to see how it would come within the ambit of our rules. In any case no motion is attached to the question and it seems to me the matter has been contributed to equally on both sides. No motion has been put to the Chair in the usual form, and therefore I really do not see I can enter now into a prolongation of the discussion by asking all hon. members who have been in some way involved to make their contributions to it. That would have to be done, in my opinion, in some other way.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I find myself a little embarrassed to question you, Sir, after we have been getting on so very well since 1968, but having asked a supplementary question of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, a question which, incidentally, is one of national importance and extreme urgency, because of the minister's attitude to statistics compiled by Statistics Canada relating to job vacancies, wherein he indicated that the same were misleading, useless, and should be regarded with a jaundiced eye, the minister responded to several questions of mine indicating that his department does have certain statistics in that regard. All I was attempting to do was to give the minister an opportunity to table such information within the next two or three days. As a matter of fact, I said: would the minister undertake to table in the House the number of vacancies registered with the Canada Manpower centres at a given point of time, and would he undertake to table in the House, unless, of course, these data are secret, the number of vacancies registered with the centres at the end of each of the last 24 months?
I have been here long enough to know that questions asking for detailed figures are normally placed on the order paper, but knowing how long it takes to get an answer to a question on the order paper I thought it only proper to attempt to get this information for the edification of all hon. members since the minister has indicated he has no confidence in Statistics Canada in terms of the information to which he has referred. I accept Your Honour's ruling, as I always do, being the gentleman I am.
The minister knows that I want information, and he knows I never ask questions just to ask them. He was prepared to answer the question which requires either a yes or no answer. In your wisdom, Mr. Speaker, you did not allow the minister the opportunity to give the yes or no answer, and I know the minister would like to give at least some indication as to his position in answer to the question I put to him.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am so happy that both the hon. member for Hamilton West and I agree that the question which I did not permit to be answered was not a proper

question for the question period. Now that we are outside the question period, the minister may want to indicate that he is prepared to table the figures. So long as it is outside the question period, I will not stop him if he wants to do it.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, a few little things slipped into the premise of the hon. member's point of order, namely, that I had cast less than approval on some of the statistics that have come forward. I have indicated that the statistics were all fight but I felt they were being used mischievously. I have indicated the answer to the hon. member. On the number of job vacancies, we have about 20 per cent or 30 per cent of the market. About three million or five million jobs change hands, and at the end of the month there are about 100,000 vacancies. I do not think that any more information than that is required.


An hon. Member:: Oh yes it is.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You are evading my point.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,652, 2,041 and 2,042.


Mr. Dinsdale: How many pieces of originating mail of all categories were processed by Canadian postal plants during the month of December (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: December 1974, 567.293 million pieces. December 1975, 630.887 million pieces. December 1976,* 557.2 million pieces (estimated figure).
* Actual count not available before April 1, 1977.


Mr. Howie: 2. Yes, A reserve may be taken in respect of proceeds not received. Also, tax on such capital gains may be deferred by purchasing an income-averaging annuity contract.


Mr. Elowie: Is the base value of an asset subject to capital gains tax indexed to increase with the cost of living in order to prevent taxation of illusory capital gains?


Monique Bégin: No.


Ralph Goodale: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notice of motion for the production of papers No. 71?


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 71-Mr. Marshall:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all pertinent material resulting in the decisions on Search and Rescue in Canada, such as (a) stationing two Canadian Forces helicopters in Newfoundland (b) provision of a CCG rescue hovercraft, strengthened for navigation in ice, for service on the north-east coast of Newfoundland (c) establishing a marine safety education programme (d) organizing a Canadian Coast Guard auxiliary on a national basis to assist in education, search and rescue work (e) procurement of special equipment to improve marine rescue capabilities of SAR helicopters in Newfoundland (f) the establishment of emergency centres in St. John's, Newfoundland and Quebec.
Mr. Speaker:: Shall notice of motion No. 71 in the name of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.
Motion stands.


Ralph Goodale: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the other notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.
Immigration



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, March 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. Cullen that Bill C-24, respecting immigration to Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to the order made Thursday, March 17, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion standing in the name of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) for second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration Bill C-24, an act respecting immigration to Canada.
Hon. members will note that under the terms of the order the bells shall ring for 15 minutes.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.
Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.

Donald Stovel Macdonald: that Bill C-37, to provide for the making of certain fiscal payments and of established programs financing contributions to provinces, to provide for payments in respect of certain provincial taxes and fees, and to make consequential and related amendments, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.
[Mr. Speaker.)


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


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I should like at third reading to deal with a number of major themes which were raised in the debate on second reading, and which also ran through a number of questions raised during committee stage. First may I express my appreciation to the Chairman, the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik), and members of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs for the care and attention they devoted to the study of the bill and their promptness in reporting, which has made it easier to bring this bill forward in the tight time frame we face.
I suppose if one reads the reports of debates on the bill, and committee proceedings, one cannot help but be impressed by the quality of ambivalence in many of the statements made not only by the opposition but made by myself, as well, and others in the course of discussions. There is a quality of ambivalence because, on the one hand, there has been an effort on the part of those dealing with the bill to take a further step which would reinforce provincial autonomy, reinforce the autonomy of the provincial governments or, to use a current buzzword, further the cause of decentralization. But there has been, at the same time, support for the continuing role of the federal government in providing financial support for provincial governments in essential services, particularly for provincial governments with a smaller than average tax base. I do not think anyone needs to apologize for this ambivalence. They are both desirable and legitimate goals, and many of our federal-provincial relations in this area, those to do with this bill and those established over the years, have been attempts to arrive at some kind of balance between those two forces.
The bill, in my opinion, does that, I think quite successfully. That is not to say that it could not be improved upon in terms of balance or of division of responsibilities as between the two levels of government; but it does represent the result of a concerned and careful effort on all sides to arrive at an appropriate sharing of revenue and an appropriate sharing of responsibility, in order to make certain that these essential public services continue to be provided.
I have been interested in noting some foreign comments on the system of federal-provincial fiscal relations which we now have and have had for many years in Canada. In its study of related problems the United States Congress gave some attention to the kinds of problems we are addressing ourselves to today, and commissioned a private study of the Canadian system for the purposes of the Congressional consideration. That particular study commented very favourably on the kinds of arrangements which have been worked out between the two levels of government in Canada; it commented favourably on our kind of cost-sharing and on the assumption of responsibili-
March 23, 1977

ty in particular by the senior level of government for some of the very heavy costs which, in a modern society, must be borne by the more junior levels of government. I think Canadians can look at that analysis with interest, because it is a foreign observation that the methods we have evolved in this country have been successful for us and have potential application elsewhere.
I should like to deal with a number of the themes raised by various members in the course of the debate and committee discussions. First I deal with the rather difficult question raised initially, I think, by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), and echoed by others, namely, to put it in the bluntest terms, that the House was presented with a fait accompli, that the parliamentary process really could not operate because we had an agreement here already entered into by the federal and provincial governments.
1 think it is fair to remind the House that during the long negotiations involved in these particular proceedings the House was kept aware not only of the principles upon which the federal government was approaching this renegotiation of federal-provincial arrangements, but of the many details involved in the choices being put to the provincial governments. The so-called "Lilac Book", the book entitled "The Financial Assessment of Established Programs Financing Proposal", was tabled in the House on December 7, and in response to questions in the House, and extensive discussions outside, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), I, and my colleagues have had an opportunity to elaborate on the principles being followed.
It was hardly a negotiation which was rushed through; nor was it one in which the participants were silent. The provincial premiers and ministers spoke at length about their positions, both at the time of the conferences and at in-between meetings, and, as I said, so did I and my colleagues, both inside and outside the House. The final question of course is, should these negotiations have been conducted, as the agreement of the two levels of government was conducted, in camera, or should this process have been carried on in public? I think 1 would have to fall back on the experience and common sense of the public sector and private sector in this regard. In these kinds of financial negotiations, if you carry them on in public you run the risk of turning them into mere posturing. To get results there has to be, finally, a meeting of minds of ministers meeting among themselves and dealing with the final issues laid on the table before them. Was parliament presented with a fait accompli?


John Edward Broadbent: Yes.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: To that question the answer is both yes and no.


John Edward Broadbent: A perfectly typical Liberal answer.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It is a perfect answer because it takes in all the facts of the situation. I would say that it was not any more a fait accompli than any other piece of legislation, or any other proposal, be it either a treaty with international parties or any other kind of federal-provincial contract
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements which is presented as a fait accompli. After all, to borrow a phrase from Jennings, under our system the government proposes, and parliament disposes. This assumes that the government will come forward with a highly definitive proposal and a particular policy; and nobody can accuse this proposal of not being highly definitive. That is exactly what has been done in this case.
We have put the matter before parliament. Having said that, I say that the ability of parliament to make changes was not limited. It would have been unwise to have upset the balance of so carefully balanced a package as this, particularly since the participant governments had been in favour of the package. However, I must say that if that right had been insisted upon and if parliament had acted, indeed the basic agreement could have been changed.
As to the comment made about the difficulty of the bill, I acknowledged that on second reading. I must say that, ultimately, it was the difficulty of the subject matter itself which created the difficulty of the legislative draft. With regard to equalization, for example, we were dealing with a very complex framework of provincial taxation and other revenue systems, and in order to create a system which would deal with the complex variety of tax laws in Canada we needed a carefully and precisely drafted text. The bill has to deal with the situation which exists; it would have been very nice if we had been dealing with a simpler subject matter. The fact is that the subject was difficult and, hence, was inevitably complex.
I shall deal with a number of specific points which were raised. It was often insisted throughout this discussion that the federal government had, on the question of the revenue guarantee, acted unilaterally. In literal truth, that is quite correct. The undertaking by the federal government in the first place to make the revenue guarantee payments was a unilateral undertaking by the Government of Canada. Indeed the subsequent undertakings of this government to extend the original promises with respect to the tax reform in 1971-72 and to extend those promises to the changes which occurred in the budgets of 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975 and 1976, were all unilateral extensions by the federal government of the protection which was offered originally in connection with the tax change. Unilateral, yes. It is fair to say that the further extension of the financial benefits to the provinces far outweighed any loss that the provinces may have suffered in relation to that original undertaking in tax reform because of shifting from the so-called macro-economic to the side-by-side formula.
One of the points that was raised from time to time was that the measures would discriminate against the less well-to-do provinces within Confederation. That is still alleged.


Mr. Orlikow:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It is interesting to give some attention to the bill to show that that is not proposed. I take it

March 23, 1977
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
the hon. member who says "hear, hear" would prefer to stick with the existing provision.


David Orlikow: That is what the provinces want.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, the provinces agreed that the equalization formula should be changed, that formula B, which was the one adopted by them, was their preferred formula. Indeed they agreed with the figures in the Lilac Book which point out that over a period of time the disparities between provinces would disappear.
Let us look at this from the standpoint of the per capita entitlements under the established programs financing, comparing the current arrangements with regard to medical care, hospital care, and post-secondary education with what the provinces will be entitled to as a result of putting in EPF.
In the current year, 1977-78, if we had remained on the current arrangement, the difference between Prince Edward Island and Ontario, for example, to pick the smallest and largest of the provinces in population terms, the difference between the two provinces on a per capita basis would have been $40.95 in favour of Ontario. As a result of EPF, in the first year of this program, the current year, that disparity will be reduced to $30.75.
Carrying it through to the year 1981-82, if we had stayed on the current arrangements for these particular programs as the hon. member has suggested, the disparity between the two provinces would have risen to $57.23, rather than the circumstances that will occur as a result of EPF, namely, that the disparity will be reduced to $5.89, very substantially reduced from that which exists in the current year.
It has been said, and it may have been the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) who said it, that the financial conditions in this bill were not agreeable to the provinces. That was not the case in December. As I said, the provinces agreed with formula B for equalization. They accepted the concept of established programs financing in principle, and there were substantial areas of agreement with respect to the details of the EPF proposal.


John Edward Broadbent: There were also substantial areas of disagreement.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member says they were not agreeable. There was agreement with the 50/50 cash and tax transfer arrangement-


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister just said that what I cited in an earlier speech in this debate was inaccurate. He said it was not the fact. On this point of order I would like to quote to the minister from the official transcript of the first ministers' meeting, the proposal-


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Surely this is a question of debate. If the hon. member wants to participate in the debate, he can do so, but not under the guise of a point of order.


John Edward Broadbent: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was going to-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) has not indicated his point of order. Will he please do so?


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the minister has said that something I had said earlier was not the fact, that it was not true. If the minister is going to make that allegation, he has to document it, and I in turn should have the opportunity to document the claim I made to which the minister is referring.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Which you can do when speaking in the debate.


John Edward Broadbent: That is an entirely different question. When the minister accuses someone on this side of the House, or anyone else, of misrepresenting the truth-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby that this is a point of debate. The hon. member can participate after the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald).


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member insists on answering on a point of order before I finish my presentation. If he disagrees, that is a matter of debate. Surely it is not a point of order.
I was indicating that there was substantial provincial agreement with the 50/50 cash and tax transfer arrangement with EPF, agreement with the transfer of 12.5 personal income tax points and one corporate income tax point, and agreement with the GNP escalator. The provinces accepted the federal proposals for revenue stabilization, tax collections, and reciprocal taxation. At least six of the provinces have done so on the latter.
There is very substantial agreement on the part of the provincial governments, and was at the December meeting, to many parts of the package. There can be no doubt about the fact that there was a disagreement as to how much the federal government should pay as a final balancing payment for the purpose of arriving at this particular compromise.
We started off with the position from the revenue guarantee, which terminated as of the end of 1976, that there was no further obligation to pay. We met the provinces half way on that, split the difference, and settled the compromise. Even that was finally agreed to by the provinces. Sure they would have liked more. Sure, from the standpoint of our having to go to the federal taxpayer we would have liked to pay less. I think it was Premier Davis who said at the end of the meeting that it was as the result of a compromise between parties. The allegation was made that the final authority rested with the federal government and therefore they had to accept the fact. In a certain sense that is true, but it is also false.
For example, the arrangement with respect to the hospital program could not have been carried out by the federal government without the agreement of the provinces. This was
March 23, 1977

their blocking point with respect to the established programs financing. As I said, they agreed with the principles and they are prepared to come up in this regard.
It is true that finally the money has to be appropriated by this parliament, and the responsibility rests here. If it had been as was suggested at various points, that this was on a take it or leave it basis, it would not have taken 18 months to have arrived at the kind of agreement in specific terms which all of the provinces accepted.
The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby has set a lot of store in the fact that the provinces with the larger tax base will get, to use his term, a financial bonanza out of this particular measure. It is true that the provinces with a larger tax base will get a substantially greater return than will the provinces with a smaller tax base. The critical element that has to be emphasized is that the bill also provides for the equalization of tax bases up to a national average so that all of the provinces are brought up to a national average.


John Edward Broadbent: Not the top one.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member says he is in favour of the top one and in effect that there should be transfer payments to British Columbia and Alberta by the federal government, in terms of their revenue. Does that make sense? It did not make sense for the provinces around that table. It hardly makes sense to a province like Alberta, with its heritage fund and substantial oil revenues at this time to have a transfer payment to bring it up to the top province, Ontario.
The essence of the equalization payment, the essence of the established programs financing, is that there are disparities between the provinces of Canada. The federal government moves are to make certain all provinces are brought up to a national average in this regard. We do not take the position, which apparently is the position of the leader of the NDP, that the other provinces should be brought down in some way from a peak of revenue advantage. There will be varying advantages within Confederation.
The province of Saskatchewan, with a substantial mineral potential will, if it is managed in the right way, in due course be the beneficiary of substantial royalties from that revenue potential, perhaps even comparable to those of Alberta. Would the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby suggest to the people of Saskatchewan, and to the Saskatchewan government, that in due course they should not enjoy the full benefit of that mineral endowment, that in some way they should be equalized down rather than bringing the less wealthy provinces up to a national average, which has been the approach of this government and, I suggest, of the provincial governments as well, to these fiscal arrangements?
The fact of the matter is that in absolute dollar terms all provinces are projected to benefit from EPF, compared to current arrangements extended. For instance, in 1981-82 the dollar gain for the province of Newfoundland, for example, will be $50.3 million; for New Brunswick $72 million; Quebec
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements $363 million; a substantial gain for Ontario, of course, $567.2 million; and for Saskatchewan $96.8 million. All provinces stand to gain. The estimated aggregate gain for all provinces in the year 1981-82 is $1,718 million, so there is indeed a substantial gain from EPF on the part of all provinces, and that is why they accepted the formula.
Some important and serious questions have been raised by a number of members who are here this afternoon, Mr. Speaker-the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) and the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) being two-in regard to the problems of program conditions. I should like to make essentially two points. First of all, with regard to the health program conditions the bill does assure that there will be a continuing, more generalized surveillance by the Government of Canada in meeting health program conditions. It is quite true that we will no longer be engaged in the detailed auditing which was necessary when there was a 50 per cent cost-sharing formula. Nevertheless, there will continue to be monitoring by the Government of Canada of the basic program conditions, which in the health area are comprehensiveness, universality, portability, accessibility, and public administration. The provinces will be required to furnish information which will permit the federal government to determine whether or not the basic program conditions are being met.
Apart from stipulations in this particular law and the conditions for transfer payments, my view has always been that the provinces will continue to provide this level of services, not so much because of the legal obligations but because of the political reality that their populations have come to expect that quality or level of service, and that the conditions will continue to be adhered to. But if my practical approach to it does not turn out to be justified in fact, there is still the legal restraint upon the provinces as to the extent to which the cash transfer payment can be dealt with. I have to acknowledge, of course, that that part of the compensation which is represented by tax-points goes into the provincial revenue and is administered by the individual province as it chooses.
On the question of post-secondary education a number of serious and difficult questions have been raised in this debate which brought out, perhaps to a greater degree than in others, that kind of ambivalence which I referred to at the start-the importance of recognizing provincial autonomy in certain areas, but at the same time the wish that the federal government maintain a broader national role.
Particular concerns have been expressed regarding the continued assurance of free interprovincial mobility of students, and the danger of restriction on that mobility whether by higher out-of-province tuition fees or in some way by the use of quotas.
One of the elements of importance in our Canadian educational system has been the ability of students to pick their university of choice. In particular the native province of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and the province of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal have, over the years, provided educational opportunities for many students from
4266

March 23, 1977
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Ontario, and obviously if this were upset advantage would be lost of what has been a beneficial arrangement for all parts of the country.
This government agrees entirely with that particular proposition, a proposition that will continue to be put before the education ministers' meeting by the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts). Obviously, for constitutional reasons, we are not in a position to impose conditions on the provinces in the field of post-secondary education, but that viewpoint will continue to be expressed. At the moment the universities do not impose higher out-of-province tuition fees, and apparently they do not have any serious inclination to do so. Nevertheless, it is one of the matters of mutual concern which the Secretary of State will have to represent in his discussions with ministers of education.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I go back to my initial theme that this is an area of very considerable difficulty of negotiation, but of very fundamental importance in our confederation. I think in general terms one can disagree on the saw-off which I referred to earlier-the disposition of the provincial claims for some continuation of the revenue guarantee. Indeed one can argue one side or the other-whether it was too generous or not generous enough. However, I do not think one should let oneself be swayed by that particular debate and overlook the fact that in this regard there has been a substantial national compromise on the financing of important programs as well as the basic public services provided through this bill.
Despite all the criticisms that one hears about the Canadian federal system, this is a good example of the way in which our constitutional arrangements have evolved. This kind of negotiation and this kind of federal-provincial arrangement have, in many ways, brought about a far more effective evolution than perhaps could have been obtained by a more formal amending arrangement within the constitution. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I think the bill represents a substantial framework for the continued development of basic services by the provinces, a substantial contribution to Confederation, and on that basis I hope I will have the support of hon. members for it at third reading.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: The minister can count on the support of this party at third reading, Mr. Speaker, but I do want to take a minute or two to raise again some of the issues that seem to us to be of concern as we look ahead. If I had the time and the inclination to go into a dissertation on language-in this case the English language-I might be tempted to discuss the phenomenon of good words, bad words and buzzwords, and so on. One of the current buzzwords, it seems to me, is decentralization. It is a pity that many people who use words like decentralization do not spell out the elements of the word.
I prefer to think of Confederation in this way, that it is something of a constructive tension but that we should not be disturbed about that tension. I do not mean the graver aspects of tension and those who wish to separate; I mean that there will always be reconciliation going on in Confederation. As a matter of fact one of the essential components of Confedera-

tion is surely reconciliation. It is the absence of this concept in recent times which has caused many of us to be dismayed by the direction that this country may take.
The minister said-and I want to allude to this later in my speech-that the House had been made aware of the "lilac paper." I rather like lilac in New Brunswick in June, but I had not thought of lilac as being a particularly dramatic description of the government's forecast of fiscal arrangements. In any event the paper was lilac. The minister used the term. Unhappily, however, lilac or no lilac, there were gaps in the information supplied by the government. It was not until the committee got under way, after second reading, that the tables were presented. We, at that stage, thanked the officials who made the presentation, but that was rather late in the discussion of this issue.
I have one or two other specific points to mention. With the greatest of respect to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), who seems to be huffing and puffing a little bit today-I do not usually comment on huffing and puffing because I might get into trouble myself-


An hon. Member:: Go ahead!


Mr. Fairweather:: -we had three or four very interesting committee meeting discussions on this bill with three ministers of the Crown, and I have to point out that in only one instance was the party he leads represented during what was a rather crucial discussion stage of this bill. I suppose this is being a little self-righteous on my part, and the hon. member may wish to comment. Anyway, we missed his party, those of us who were serving on the committee.
There is one other point I would like to make which carries on the debate with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald). He mentioned the hospital problem. As a matter of fact the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) did not accept my use of the word ultimatum. That is the word I will use even if ultimatum is too strong for the Minister of Finance. It is a fact that the Government of Canada presented the provinces with the deadline of February 15. By that time the provinces either would have to accept or reject the block funding, or else there would be no funding. If that is not accurate, I wish the minister would tell me that I am inaccurate. I will continue to use the word ultimatum. That was the decision of the government, and in a minute or two I am going to comment about how this affects one of the poor provinces.
One other point I would like to make about the Minister of Finance's speech is to draw attention to what all of us- huffers and puffers, or just ordinary debaters-will agree is the omission of any built-in mechanism in the established program financing after a trial period. I think the government is going to regret this. I do not know what my future will be in this House, but I would like to be here when a new bill provides some sort of review mechanism. It is a grave omission that this bill does not have such a thing.
March 23, 1977

At an earlier stage we agreed that, if we were debating this issue and using the plainest of plain language, this bill's rather formidable title could have been renamed "a dividing up of pie" statute. Whether we talk of constructive federalism or constructive tension, it is really the nation dividing up the pie. The pie is for the nation to divide because of its resources and basically because of what people have to do around April 30 each year when they send the nation small particles of the pie, or elements of the pie, so that the division can take place.
There are some constraints, and the minister alluded to them when he wound up second reading. He alluded to this issue again today when he mentioned that the bill is founded upon an agreement that has been made between the two levels of government. As he says, he is not sure how the dilemma that we face as parliamentarians can be resolved, although he was a bit forthcoming a minute ago when he said that if we had some amendments they could have been made, and perhaps accepted. I think the minister was being overly generous to us. What we were doing was ratifying an agreement made by the various provinces and the Government of Canada. The minister was a bit less candid about this in his closing speech on second reading. Today he was talking about "yes" and "no". The other day he said that he was not sure this could be resolved. That is evidence of the minister's candour. I am going to try to be equally candid. The implications of these confessions on the part of the minister have to be addressed by parliament.
I admit that the third reading stage of this bill is not the time to discuss the future of Confederation. Perhaps it is time we did it in another debate. The third reading stage is not a time to discuss the relevance of parliament. A good deal was said about that yesterday. In a rather interesting exchange the other day some of the frustrations felt by hon. members were put on the record.
Members of parliament cannot be counterweights to the executive or to the bureaucrats if their ideas are short circuited by a fait accompli or by an agreement. I said "counterweights". I did not say adversaries. I get tired of people who want to take on the Public Service in an adversary position. That is not it, at all. I happen to believe there are people within the Public Service who might benefit from the advice, comment, and the addition of facts that come from members because they are representatives. In other words, although we tend to be generalists, in many cases that is forced upon us.
I am not saying that civil servants have not got antennae, but members of parliament through their antennae find out facts. We have to get around the country and get about our constituencies, and bring information to the Public Service. This is a rather extraordinary concept, but by utilizing parliament, bills might be improved once in a while. The frustrations of members of parliament are understandable. The impotence of MPs in policy and control is profoundly depressing and has been spoken of more and more often in recent years. I want to draw an analogy to this frustration by reminding hon. members of another bill which is equally frustrating to the system.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
Parliament is being asked to ratify the agreement made between two levels of government, Quebec and Canada, having to do with the peoples of the James Bay watershed. I happen to believe profoundly that it is quite unfair of governments to ask MPs of the government party, and of any other party, to rubberstamp and ratify an agreement that has been drawn in very legal terms and make it a statute of parliament. I am not trying to be partisan at all. I happen to think that the James Bay agreement is profoundly wrong in its concept of carrying out its responsibilities.


Mr. Buchanan:: Oh, oh!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: It is all right. I will be through in a moment. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Buchanan) is frustrated, and well he might be about the James Bay agreement.


J. Judd Buchanan: I am not frustrated. You are frustrated.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Indeed I am frustrated by being asked to ratify an agreement that has been drawn up by two levels of government before there is any input by the members of the parliament of this country. That is not a very radical reason for my frustration. There is an obligation, if we believe in this institution in the 1970's and 1980's. Members of parliament have to take their responsibilities. If that agreement is unfair and unjust, as I believe it is, then it should be our responsibility to amend it. If this agreement, made by the provincial governments and Canada, works an injustice-


J. Judd Buchanan: What about the native people? Don't mislead the House.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I mentioned the native people. The minister was reading Penthouse the last time I saw him.


J. Judd Buchanan: No!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Well, I was surprised, but some of my constituents were in the gallery and wondered about the reading matter of ministers of the Crown. If the minister is sensitive about this, it is bill No. 9.


J. Judd Buchanan: On a point of order, I am not certain what in the Sam Hill the hon. member is chattering about, Mr. Speaker, but I was not reading Penthouse, and if he suggests that I am he is incorrect.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I think the frustration is on the minister's part-


J. Judd Buchanan: Come on, Gordon. Don't be foolish!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: The minister had better consider what he is saying. I do not wish to pursue this matter any further. The minister had better consider what he is saying, and I want to go on with my speech.


J. Judd Buchanan: Absolute nonsense!
80010-63V4

March 23, 1977
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I propose to go on with my speech and let the minister think through the implications of what he is asking me to do.
What I was saying is that it is most unfair and unjust to expect the Parliament of Canada to ratify a bill which affects native peoples or anybody else, without having the opportunity to make any input into the measure. That is what I was saying.
I recognize it is an extremely difficult situation. What I was trying to discuss, if the minister were not so impatient, is the difficulty parliament experiences when it is faced with a bill the parameters of which are already drawn. That is all.
Without being overly immodest, I believe some people in this House do possess a degree of insight into at least two or three of the concerns dealt with in this bill. I said earlier that these insights come to us because of the manner in which we carry out our responsibilities as members. I happen to have made it my business to understand the issues surrounding post-secondary education, and I will come to that aspect later, but first I should like to talk about health care because the people and the government of New Brunswick are anxious about health care.
It is a fact that by November, 1976, the proposal for the funding of extended health care service had become, from Canada's point of view, an appendage to the established program financing proposal rather than a separate cost-sharing issue in the health field. This, as the minister of health said, amounted to a fundamental change of direction which took place between April, 1976, and November, 1976, I think it was. I am not criticizing this. I am saying that in the long discussions which went on it was not until November that the change took place. The November date was the climax of meetings between ministers of health, meetings with officials, and then the meeting of first ministers beginning in April, 1976. All this culminated in a revised plan for health care offered by Canada on the basis that a decision had to be made by February 15, 1977, or, as the minister's statement went, block funding would lapse. Those were the terms of the deadline.
I do not wish to appear to be confining this appeal solely to the concern of one province, but the anxiety of New Brunswick is symptomatic of something larger than the preoccupation of one particular province. In fact it goes to the core of the federal government's perception of its role in the partnership. New Brunswick shares the objective of controlling the rate of cost increase for existing programs and of developing lower cost alternative programs which are more humane in their application to the people who need them.
My province believes that the application of block funding to extended health care programs is not appropriate at this time because of the nature of the services covered by the block funding concept. The concept itself is good and logical when applied to mature services, but it is inconsistent with the encouragement of basic health services which are similar throughout Canada because New Brunswick has not reached a sufficiently advanced stage in health service development. This is a perfect illustration of the dilemma in which one finds

oneself when trying to develop programs which are strictly the same from one part of the country to another, that is, the same in terms of money.
Hospital insurance and medical care are reasonably consistent across Canada. I believe the government is to be congratulated upon this, as are the provincial governments. There is consistency across the country. So block funding in itself is not the problem. The rub comes in the field of extended health care. There is a very great variety in the quality and kinds of services available in hospitals across the country. I have to say that in New Brunswick the system is, at this stage, immature. Growth is under way, but time is needed until the services are fully developed.
The province of New Brunswick had asked for a very modest concession during a transitional period so that hardship might be avoided. The minister turned down that request. When I last spoke to him about it in committee, he said to me that he had not even responded to a letter from the province, stating reasons for declining the suggestion. The request by the province was a modest one seeking a transitional amount of $6 million in descending sums over the next three years. This is what was proposed to the minister of health. The province would accept the block funding concept but would prefer a phase-out period of three years.
The minister told us in committee that this was impossible. He spoke of federal funds as being gravy-that was the word he used-and said the provinces should not expect "more gravy". I should like the minister to name any one of the four Atlantic provinces which is on some sort of "gravy train" as far as health care programs or any other of these services are concerned. I suggest such an attitude makes "co-operative federalism" sound hollow and that the newest cliche which is being trotted out, flexible federalism, will prove no better if, when there is an opportunity to bring some flexibility to the concept, the government turns it down the first time it is tested.
I have two compliments to pay. One is to my colleague, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) who really did a superior job in analysing this bill and studying it through the committee stage. She warned us of some of the dangers, one or two of which I have noted. One is the lack of any review mechanism, and also the danger inherent if we are not perfectly sure that there will be some sort of equality across the country in the service area.
It is interesting and very positive that one of the other women in public life is Judith Maxwell. I suppose "public life" is not the phrase to use about Judith Maxwell, but surely outside parliament Judith Maxwell must be one of the most interesting women commenting on Canada today. In "Policy Review and Outlook, 1977" she discusses an agenda for change. In a small paragraph on page 8 of that booklet she suggests:
The structural questions outlined here are an agenda for personal reflection as much as they are for government action, for the individual will be facing two
March 23, 1977

challenges in the next few years. First, it is important for individual Canadians to understand that there are powerful forces at work which will inevitably alter the status quo.
Of course the status quo is being altered, I think for the best in general terms, by the bill which we are' now debating at third reading stage. But I do worry about the health care provisions, I do worry about the lack of mechanisms, and I worry particularly about the whole aspect of post-secondary education. The minister did refer to this concern in his speech a minute or two ago.
Claude Bissell, the former president of the University of Toronto, wrote a lively book called "Half-way up Parnassus". When this bill was being debated I could not help but think that this minister-or perhaps this is being unfair to him and I should confine this to the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) under whose aegis post-secondary education comes-could write a book called "Descending Parnassus" because there is no doubt that under the provisions of this bill the Government of Canada, not in dollar terms but in terms of its concern for its undoubted obligation, role, and responsibility in postsecondary education, is changing direction, is, as I say, descending Parnassus.
The bill has a political element in the funding arrangements. The government, as a matter of fact, in another area has said that it has reduced over-all spending by 2.4 per cent, thereby gaining, I presume, some political brownie points. But in an article in the April edition of University Affairs which, by happy coincidence came just yesterday, in a feature article by Lynda Woodcock, concern was expressed about increasing provincial control. It reads:
Increasing provincial control over all aspects of post-secondary education was a major topic of discussion at a recent conference on higher education held at the university of Manitoba.
The conference was sponsored by Manitoba's education faculty as a contribution to the university's celebration of its centennial.
Two other important topics considered at length were university-government relations and university governance-
Then there follows a discussion by Dr. Claude Thibault, who is the executive director of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. The article reads:
Dr. Thibault noted that the federal government's attempt to have some influence on post-secondary policies had failed.
Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau had recommended that a permanent policy forum for the federal and provincial governments be set up for discussion on post-secondary matters. This idea was rejected by the provinces.
Surely that is not good enough. If the idea was rejected by the provinces, the leadership of this government was at stake. I have no doubt in the world that there is a constitutional imperative for the federal government in post-secondary education to continue to play its national role, and it concerns me deeply that by changing some of the financial formulas we could be in danger of increasing provincial control. I think that is a matter that should concern all of us in the Parliament of Canada who are federalists.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, before I get to the substance of my comments in third reading debate I would like to raise and dispose of some misinforma-
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements tion provided by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) in the House, and deal with the opening comments of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather).
In his comments this afternoon the minister said that I had misinformed the House when I said that the provinces were not happy with this agreement, that they did not accept it. I would like to refer the minister to the transcript. It was a closed session but I obtained copies of the transcript of the first ministers' meeting of December 14, 1976, when premier Lougheed replied to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on behalf of all the provinces in response to the specific set of proposals that we are debating in the House this afternoon. Here is what premier Lougheed said on behalf of the provinces:
... all the provinces are of the view that the proposal... is inadequate, but a number of provinces felt they were left with no alternative but to accept it.
It was inadequate, but they had to accept it. Why did they accept it? They accepted it for the obvious reason that, as the Minister of Finance in his quiet and reasonable way indicated, the ultimate authority rests with the Parliament of Canada. The existing agreements were due to be terminated on March 31 of this year and the provinces had to take what they could get. They had to like it or lump it. When they got this set of inequitable proposals put before them-of course they contained some crumbs, particularly for the poorer provinces, with which they were pleased in the short run-rather than being left with nothing at all after March 31 they accepted the package. But to imply, as the minister did, that this is something they all entered into voluntarily, that there was a happy round of cheers on the part of the premiers, is just .absurd. It was forced upon them. It was federal legislation. They had no alternative. So I stand by what I said in the'House when we debated second reading on February 18. This was not an agreement reached on a voluntary basis by the provinces.
The second point I would like to make before getting on to the substance of my comments is that the hon. member for Fundy-Royal said that I seemed to be huffing and puffing a bit today, and he could not quite understand it. My own view is that when you have something to huff and puff about, if you are prepared to take a stand on an issue which you think is important and relevant, then it is appropriate to show that with a little emotional concern as well as with arguments to support your position.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: You might have been at the committee. Huff and puff in both places.


John Edward Broadbent: The hon. member says that it would have been better if we could have been in the committee during the committee stage of the debate. He suggested that our member was at one meeting but missed a couple of others. I say in reply to him that the hon. member who will speak after me in this debate today, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), was in fact our member on the committee. He had a conflict in terms of another committee that was sitting at the time, and he decided that since all the Conservative members on the committee were supporting the government on this

March 23, 1977
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
legislation anyway, there was not much useful time that could be spent on the bill. I say in all seriousness to the hon. member for Fundy-Royal that perhaps his party did not huff and puff about the bill because it is voting for it, in spite of what the hon. member has just said.
He has made a case for New Brunswick not being happy with it. He has suggested he is unhappy about the implications of inequality in the financing of medicare. He suggested a deep concern about the financing of post-secondary education, if we accept this bill. Those are precisely the reasons the New Democratic Party gave for voting against the bill. In our view this is one of the most retrograde pieces of legislation brought before this parliament in the last decade. I say that with care, and 1 mean it.
What we have in this bill is a virtual turning upside down of the spirit of co-operative federalism which was brought into this parliament by a former prime minister, Mr. Lester Pearson, who in the mid-1960's took the view that what was needed in Canada was national involvement in the areas of medicare, hospitalization, and the financing of post-secondary education. At that time the New Democratic Party argued for precisely that course of action, and we argued that the serious inequalities that existed between our provinces had to be removed. We argued that all the provinces east of the Ottawa River had a very real difficulty ensuring that kids growing up in that part of Canada-in half the provinces of Canada-had the same opportunities and expectations as kids growing up elsewhere in this country.
What was embarked upon in the 1960's is now being systematically destroyed by the Prime Minister of Canada, with the total support of the Conservative party. The leader of the Conservative party (Mr. Clark) at second reading supported the principle of this legislation. What is at stake is the abolition of national programs, the justification for which was to equalize conditions across the country.
The Minister of Finance is scoffing again. I noted that neither at second reading nor at third reading today did the minister produce the figure of $1.3 billion which is found in tables possessed by his officials. This $1.3 billion figure is what Ontario is going to gain as compared with the gain of other provinces-


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I produced other figures.


John Edward Broadbent: -as a result of this set of agreements. The Minister of Finance knows as well as the rest of us and, indeed, better than most of us-because that is his area of concentration and responsibility-that a tax point transfer to the province of Prince Edward Island is worth $4 per capita, but a tax point transfer to Ontario is worth $10 per capita.
What is involved here is a very retrograde step. We are saying we are going to turn over 13 and a half tax points to the provinces, plus some modicum of equalization as part of the package which, I repeat, was rejected by the provinces, as if

they really had an alternative. We are transferring 13 and a half tax points-


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That was not rejected.


John Edward Broadbent: The package was rejected.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That point was not rejected; it was accepted.


John Edward Broadbent: Which one?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The transfer of tax points was accepted.


John Edward Broadbent: It was accepted because they had no alternative.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It was accepted before the final agreement.


John Edward Broadbent: The minister says it was accepted before the final agreement, but he knows it was accepted on the condition that other parts of the package be acceptable to them.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North is going to speak later in this debate, and he is going to present to the House the considered reaction of two provincial governments to the implications of this bill. These reactions were presented in the sessions with the federal government before the agreement was reached in mid-December.
The point I am making is that when we are in the process of transferring tax points to the provinces and saying to the provinces that in the long run they will have to finance hospitals, medical services, and university educations for their kids, that is exactly like saying that under Canadian law rich men and poor men all have the same right to buy a Cadillac. That is exactly what is involved, and it is no coincidence that in the real world the keys for the Cadillac always end up in the pockets of the rich.
As I said earlier, in this process there is an abandonment of the program which was established by the former prime minister of this country, Lester Pearson. I made the point in the second reading debate that this bill is harmful to Canada because a person growing up on Cape Breton Island ought to have the same opportunities in basic aspects of existence not only as another person growing up in Halifax, in that same province, but the same opportunity as a cousin who may live in Calgary or someone who may live in downtown Toronto.
If a common sense of nationhood means anything, we must establish basic common conditions all across this land. That was what was involved in the 1960's when we were developing important national programs, but we are now destroying that structure. That is harmful in terms of equality, and particularly at this particular time in our history it is harmful in terms of national unity. The two go together because in order for men, women and children in one part of Canada-whether it is in the Gaspe region of Quebec or in the province of Newfoundland, which is one vast area of unemployment, or in Victoria or in Moose Jaw-to develop a sense of commonality and iden-
March 23, 1977

tification with the national government, they have to sense that there is now in existence either a basic state of equality in Canada, or at least that government programs are moving toward the establishment of a state of equality in certain basic respects.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: We are moving away from that.


John Edward Broadbent: We are now moving in precisely the opposite direction. We are now saying that people who grow up in Alberta, British Columbia, and Ontario are going to have greater opportunities-even greater than they now have-and greater expectations in life for themselves and their families than people growing up in other parts of the country. That is not only wrong from the point of view of equality, but it is also fundamentally wrong at this point in our history on the part of a government which ought to be concerned about the question of national unity.
I predict that-not next year or the year after, perhaps in the third year, but certainly by the fifth year-this program will bring about a worsening of the economic position of Atlantic Canada and of the province of Quebec compared with the rest of Canada. What that means is that there will be more resentment. The east and the west will be in greater conflict. English Canadians will be less prepared than they are now to accept the aspirations of the people of the province of Quebec. In short, with this technical legislation we are sowing the seeds of grievous discontent.
My party believes that the issues at stake are very serious. The right alternative to some provincial dissatisfaction with existing federal-provincial agreements in post-secondary education, in medicare, and in hospitalization is not to move toward the shifting of tax point power to the provinces which, as I said, favours the rich over the poor, nor is to be found in a similar proposal which is discussed these days by the Conservative party of Canada and in some Liberal circles, which is to transfer constitutional power more specifically and clearly back to the provinces and to make sure that the provinces stay narrowly within those rigid confines. Neither of those approaches is favoured by my party.
What the New Democratic Party says is required at this time is the maintenance of effective national programs. This will ensure a basic state of equality in the health and education fields across the country. We need programs for medical care, health, and education, programs that will ensure a state of equity across Canada, but programs that will be flexible in terms of administrative decentralization. There is no reason why we cannot take the rhetoric of decentralization seriously and apply it within the framework of national programs.
We could have a department of national housing, which we should have, to allocate substantial amounts of money for housing to the provinces on an equalized basis. That would not mean we would need a body such as Central Mortgage and Housing to lay down rigorous standards for housing in British
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Columbia, for instance, where requirements are different from those in Ontario, or different from the architectural and traditional requirements of Quebec. We could have a national program on housing which would say to the provinces, "Here is the money which we raised on a national basis because that removes some of the inequities that exist between the provinces. All you have to do is spend so much of it within a broad income category to make sure it goes to low and medium income Canadians first." There could perhaps be ceilings on the prices of houses, but that is all. The provinces would meet their own architectural traditions and geographic circumstances. Taking the decentralization rhetoric seriously, this would allow the provinces to do a good job on housing.
A similar proposition could be put in the medical care and hospitalization fields. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), backed by the Prime Minister, insisted that all provinces in order to get money for hospitalization had to build acute care hospitals that just did not make either medical or economic sense. Instead of abolishing the program, and instead of the federal government getting out entirely, all that was needed was for the government to lay down broad guidelines for the provinces, saying in effect that it is important for money to be spent on hospitalization from British Columbia to New Brunswick but that the provinces should decide whether it should go, say, for nursing homes or acute care hospitals. The federal government does not know the details of provincial requirements, but the provincial governments do, and they should be allowed to decide the appropriate priorities for spending in such fields.
I could select other examples, Mr. Speaker, but those two will suffice. We need national programs in these areas now as never before in our history because of the value of equality in itself but in particular because of the need to generate support from one coast to the other for the national government-the need to show Canadians, wherever they live, that there is a national government that cares what happens to them. We are not getting such an indication from this government. The road we are embarked upon with this legislation indicates just the opposite; we are going to see the rich provinces getting richer and more powerful, and the poor provinces getting poorer and less powerful. That leads to less of a sense of Canadian identity and less sense of commitment to the national government, but to a greater sense of regional identification and more regional antagonism. We believe that is the wrong direction.
This bill ought to be opposed, Mr. Speaker. It ought not to have been introduced. All of us in this House who believe in national unity, who believe in equality of opportunity, ought to vote against it.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this bill, and particularly on the aspect of returning more control over health and welfare programs to the provinces. The Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), who just spoke, laid great emphasis on national programs and national unity, but we have never had greater national disunity than since these programs were introduced. I

March 23, 1977
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
have long maintained that one cause of dissatisfaction among Canadians has been the fact that the federal government has undertaken responsibility for programs of health and welfare, and also of education. The object was to promote national unity, but in fact the opposite has been the case.
Up until 20 or so years ago most communities looked after their own medical care, hospital care, and education up to university level, and they did not do too badly. There is no evidence that in different parts of Canada the incidence of death was higher, the incidence of disease was greater, or that the incidence of morbidity was any greater in one area than in another. There is no evidence of that in the United States either where the social structure is somewhat similar.
In the 1960's the Pearson government decided that the federal government should oversee the health of the citizens of Canada; that provincial governments were not to be trusted to look after their citizens. That was a great mistake, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately most of the extra money allocated for the purpose vanished into brick and concrete, or costly administration.
I think it is important that the provinces have the right to administer their own health and welfare programs and, even more important, that the municipal governments should share in the administration. I think it behooves us to look at the possibility of such things as property tax deductions for residential areas. This would encourage local governments to assume some responsibility for health costs in the form of hospitals, diagnostic clinics, and so on.
I think it is significant that the greatest trend toward national disunity has occurred since the federal government has assumed control of collecting the vast amounts of money needed to run the three programs. That is now being returned to the provinces to be spent on programs that are rather restrictive and often unsuitable for the particular province involved.
I think the federal government, in essence, bypassed the provinces by assuming the problems of health, welfare and education. It raised the money through the tax system, and so effectively bypassed the provinces and prevented them from meeting their obligations.
The provinces should have the right to decide whether their money is invested in hospitals, medical care, and post-secondary educational institutions, and they should have some leeway in this. Obviously there would be a difference in standards between provinces and we would have to make allowances for that.
In spite of all this, Mr. Speaker, I think this legislation is a step along the way. I think it will increase our national well-being in the long run even though its application may at times create some inequities.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I shall comment briefly on the remarks of the hon. member for

Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) and of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather).
It seems to me that when the hon. member for Dauphin said we should go back to the good old days when hospital care was a matter for local communities, he forgot that, in those days, many small communities were without doctors and many Canadians could not pay their doctors' bills. Often people could not enter hospital, or, if they did, could not pay the hospital bill and saw liens placed against their houses.
The hon. member forgets that a Conservative government, led by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker), put into effect a hospital insurance plan when it participated with one province in the cost-sharing of hospitalization. That led to all provinces joining the hospitalization plan. The royal commission appointed by that right hon. gentleman produced a report which led to the establishment in all provinces of a health insurance plan jointly funded by the federal and provincial governments.
Why was I not in attendance in the committee when it dealt with this bill? As my leader has already said, the answer partly is that at the same time I was serving on another committee. But the other reason is that I had participated in the debate on the bill. We had made our position clear, indicated that in our opinion the bill would have disastrous effects on national unity and on standards of service provided from one end of the country to the other.
We heard that the Conservative party intends to support the bill. I am not surprised that Conservative members from Ontario or Alberta support this bill. Those provinces stand to gain. They will get more dollars under this bill than under the old arrangement. As well, those two provinces are best able to carry the burden once the federal government withdraws from shared cost programs. The other provinces, New Brunswick, the province of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Manitoba will find it much more difficult to bear the heavier costs once the federal government's plan either to withdraw from or reduce its share of shared-cost programs comes into effect.
The hon. member for Fundy-Royal told the House this bill will have adverse effects in New Brunswick. Having said that, he turned around and said he would vote for the bill. I knew the Conservatives would not oppose the bill, and because I knew the bill would come back from committee virtually unchanged, or as it had been sent to committee, I decided to attend another meeting.
What will happen as a result of changes to the Medical Care Act, and the federal government's announcement that as soon as it legally can it will cut back its 50 per cent contribution under hospital insurance? The result will be obvious. As the government reduces spending on health, medical insurance, hospital insurance, and post-secondary education, the have-not provinces will be forced to pay the extra cost. They already have the highest tax rates in the country and, some of them, the highest sales tax rates in the country. They will be forced to increase taxes, to introduce fees as a deterrent, to increase university enrollment and tuition fees, or reduce services.
March 23, 1977

For many years we thought that one of the benefits of being a Canadian was that, no matter if one lived in Newfoundland or Vancouver Island, one was entitled to the same basic services. That meant Canadians did not have to worry about paying hospital bills, among other things. I am sure hon. members have heard of Canadian citizens unfortunate enough to be sick in the United States and forced to pay hospital bills in the United States. Those bills can run to several thousand dollars for two or three weeks of hospital care. Even Canadians not in lower income brackets would find it difficult to pay such bills. The experience of Canadians forced to see doctors in the United States is similar. The United States, the wealthiest country in the world, is the only industrialized country without a hospital insurance plan and without a medical insurance plan. Is there a member here who thinks we should do without these plans?


An hon. Member:: Yes.


David Orlikow: I do not say our plans are perfect. Partly, we oppose this bill because several provinces, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island and Quebec, think certain services can be provided more cheaply and efficiently outside intensive care hospitals which are jointly funded by the federal government. Unfortunately those outside services are not funded by the federal government. The bill makes no provision in this regard, and that is partly why we think it is wrong. It will reduce minimum health service standards and the availability of post-secondary education which, so far, we have been able to provide to Canadians in all parts of Canada.
This year, pretty well every university raised its student enrollment fees. Now, since Ottawa is to cut back the proportion of money it makes available for university education, our universities must increase fees once more. As well, most provinces will face severe financial constraints. For those reasons we oppose the bill, as we opposed the change in the Medical Care Act. We shall oppose any changes to the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. We oppose this kind of whittling away of basic and fundamental rights all Canadians have enjoyed for a quarter of a century. This whittling away can only aid the cause of separatists in all parts of the country, Quebec, Alberta or British Columbia.
If you cut back services, how can you make people believe it is great to be Canadian? Why should people in New Brunswick enjoy a lower level of service than people in Ontario and British Columbia? Because the people of Ontario or British Columbia live in provinces with resources fetching high prices now, surely that does not entitle them to infinitely better services than are available to people in Newfoundland or New Brunswick? That, fundamentally, is why we oppose this bill.
I do not want to repeat what I said at the second reading stage of the bill. However, I want to dispute vigorously the statement made today by the Minister of Finance, as well as the statements made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) when we were debating this bill on
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements second reading, that the provinces voluntarily accepted this bill, that they welcomed this bill, and that they will be better off as a result of it. The facts are, as our leader put on the record, that the premier of Alberta, speaking on behalf of all the provinces, made it clear to the federal government that all ten provincial governments, regardless of party, were opposed to the provisions of this bill.
The minister said that the provinces have accepted the bill. He implies that we are not telling the truth. Of course they accepted the bill. They knew that if they did not accept it, the funding which they have been getting for these programs under the old legislation would end. It had a time limit. They would not be entitled to any funding when the legislation would end this month. They had a choice between accepting this bill or getting nothing, because there would be no legislation in effect. They would have to depend on the charity and good will of the federal government. And they had sufficient experience with this federal government to realize that they did not want to be put in that position.
Let me point out what will happen to the provinces as a result of the passage of this bill. The province of Ontario will get $50 million in the next fiscal year, British Columbia will get $23 million, and Alberta $90 million. The poorer provinces stand to lose. Prince Edward Island will lose $2 million. Saskatchewan will lose up to $3 million. Manitoba will gain $800,000 the first year, but will lose money in subsequent years. That is only with respect to alternate care for adults who can be placed in institutions other than intensive care hospital beds.
The minister must not be permitted to get away with his statement that the provincial governments not only accepted this bill but will in fact be better off than they would have been had the bill not been passed. I want to put on the record the views of the two provincial governments with which we are in closest contact. I am sure that if the hon. member for Fundy-Royal had asked the government of New Brunswick for its analysis, he would have received approximately the same information as we got from Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
I would like to quote what the minister of finance in Manitoba said at the meeting of ministers of finance held February 1 and 2, 1977. With regard to this whole question of the federal government's per capita offer for extended health care services he said, and I quote:
Up to now, our assessment of the proposals in their ever-changing form is that they are not an adequate replacement for cost sharing commitments which had previously been made by the federal government. Our own calculations suggest that the per capita amounts offered so far would barely offset existing recoveries for Manitoba. And, they would not come close to matching the support levels that were anticipated under:
The 1975 offer to extend hospital and medical care sharing to cover alternative services, and the mid-1976 version of the proposed social services act.
Let me stop quoting for a moment to say to the minister that that social services act was not proposed by some government that had no experience and did not know of the implications of the proposals. It was proposed by this federal Liberal government less than a year ago.
4274

very basic blow at the spirit of unity, and we propose to vote against this bill.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: 
Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I am told it is a Canadian magazine, so that is fine.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With respect to the business of the House tomorrow, which is Bill C-45, the interim supply bill, we have a House order providing that the debate will conclude tomorrow evening. If there are any divisions, it has been agreed through the normal channels that they be deferred until Monday next, and I would like to have that made a House order.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: That is agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: D'accord.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered. It being after six p.m. this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 6.07 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, March 24, 1977