1977-02-18

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity to move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) that on the basis of information already available, it being apparent that President Idi Amin of Uganda and his associates have committed a revolting crime against civilization in the murder of Archbishop Janani Luurum and two of his ministers, and that this latest event being part of a continuous reign of terror and outrageous insane atrocities against Christians in particular, hundreds of whom have been shot and killed by gunfire by so-called security forces, I move:
That this House views with horror and condemns unreservedly Amin's crimes and believes that his country, so long as he is president, should be outlawed both in the United Nations and in the Commonwealth of Nations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 the motion can be presented for debate only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John George Diefenbaker: So that it be perfectly clear, Liberal members are the ones who said no.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the depressed state
of the Nova Scotian economy and the need for maximum utilization of all resources to assist in overcoming regional disparity, and in view of the dismal and continuing failure of the Metropolitan Area Growth Investments Limited, that split-level, hybrid, crown venture capital agency, jointly funded by this government and the government of Nova Scotia, to the amount of $20 million nearly five years ago, I move seconded by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield):
That the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion make a statement on motions at the first opportunity to explain and clarify the operations of MAGI and inform the House and the country whether the minister has recommended and approved the multi-million dollar investment in a second-hand cruise ship to ply the waters of the Caribbean, and whether or not the continuing dispute between the minister and his predecessor and the Premier of Nova Scotia as to appointments of executive officers for MAGI has finally ceased.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 can be presented for debate only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I, too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Considering that the Prime Minister promised three days before the 1974 election that a returned Liberal government would spend $290 million on badly needed energy-efficient urban transit, and considering that both the need to conserve energy and the financial burden of our municipalities have increased since then, I move:
That this House condemns the disgusting cynicism of the Liberal government glaringly revealed yesterday when the Minister of Finance casually announced that this additional election promise was dead.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House for the presentation of such motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Macdonald said no. How would you like your wages frozen?


Mr. Fairweather:: That's one more promise down the drain.

February 18, 1977
Garrison Diversion EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


APPROVAL OF ANNOUNCEMENT PRIME MINISTER WILL DISCUSS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to present a motion under Standing Order 43, a motion which I believe will be acceptable in all parts of the House. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House welcomes the announcement that the Prime Minister will discuss with President Carter, during his forthcoming visit to Washington, the Garrison diversion project in North Dakota, and further that this House unanimously endorses the stand the Prime Minister has said he will take to the effect that work on the Lonetree reservoir be deferred, pending a review of the whole project and of this country's concern over its effects on Canadian waters, particularly in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, which is being made by the International Joint Commission.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House for the presentation of such a motion for debate. Is the unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, who said no?


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: We agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understood that there was agreement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am prepared to put the question again. Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House before the presentation of such motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I am certain that all members of the House, all Canadians in general and Manitobans in particular, welcome the telegram sent to the Liberal leader of Manitoba, a non-elected member, announcing that the Garrison diversion would be put on the agenda for discussion. Mr. Speaker, I find it strange that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) chose not to make that announcement in this House; and, further, when asked direct questions by my colleague the member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta), by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) and myself, refused to answer.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Walter David Baker: The motion is debatable. Look at the Standing Orders.
[Mr. Fairweather.J


Dean Waldon Whiteway: The making of such an important answer outside this House is, Sir, a degradation of the rights of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: 


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Fairweather@: This is costing us $5,000 a word.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, may I mention that the Prime Minister had previously made an answer in the House in this regard. It is unfortunate that the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway) was not present. I have made several representations to the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Horner:: Now we know what you have been up to, Joe.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: The Prime Minister assured me that he would take the matter up with President Carter. For that reason, today we were in wholehearted agreement with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). We would not object to such a motion, because it had already been agreed that the Prime Minister would do exactly that.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay), the Minister without Portfolio, or the minister "without", finally indicating what is his parliamentary role. I am concerned about one thing. Why was a burden imposed on the taxpayers of Canada in order to permit the hon. gentleman finally to speak to the Prime Minister? It should be made abundantly clear that the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway), the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) and the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta), have consistently over the years that this matter has been in issue been asking this government to do what they chose to announce through an unelected member of anything who happens to be a member of the Liberal party. The government did not even have the courtesy to send copies of that telegram to the members of this House from Manitoba. I am sure that includes the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) as well.
With regard to the project in, at least in the period of time that I have been here and according to the record I have read before that time, this matter has been dealt with extensively by the Canada-United States interparliamentary group year after year after year with some sympathy among congressmen and senators in the United States. The matter has been ignored by this government except through evasion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: If the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is going to speak to the President of the United States with regard to this very important matter, a matter which I class beyond an irritant, one that affects the environ-
February 18, 1977

ment of part of Canada and one in which there is still time to stop it, I hope the negotiations are conclusive.
I hope that the conversations, which have been heralded in a book this thick with regard to press briefings, go far beyond that in terms of the legitimate concerns between our two countries because this is much more than a public relations junket. The Prime Minister is meeting a new President, a new administration, an administration which has exhibited some friendly feelings to the nations north of it and to the south. This is a great opportunity for us.
The whole project discussed in this motion is only the first. Therefore, the Prime Minister goes to Washington with the goodwill of this House. However, he also goes backed by some expectations of this House and the people of Canada. It is our hope that those expectations are not false and ill-founded.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to speak at length on this motion to which has been indicated the unanimous consent of the House. I simply want to say that it was quite clear that in responding to an inquiry about whether this matter was going to be raised that neither the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) nor myself had any intention or thought of not doing it within this chamber.
As I have said many times, responses have repeatedly been made by us to questions. I wonder if the hon. member, who criticizes us for replying through a spokesman of a political party, would say that he is any less to be replied to than the hundreds of other people in western Canada to whom we have also made replies. There was no specific answer other than one which I, personally, have sent to many, many people including members opposite.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Why did you release it to the press?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: If the hon. member will look at the media for the past three or four days, he will see there have been dozens of stories about various topics which are to be discussed during the meetings in Washington. I really do not believe there is much by way of substance in that particular complaint.
All I want to say at the moment is that I am delighted, as I am sure the Prime Minister will be, to have the unanimous support of the House on this issue. Clearly it is one we have been discussing in terms of planning for some time and it will have high priority. However, in fairness it is as well to note that work on this project and representations concerning it have come from members in all quarters of the House and there is general concern throughout Canada for it-


An hon. Member:: With the exception of the government.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: An hon. member says "With the exception of the government". I would remind him that the IJC has had a reference from the government on this matter for some time, that a group from the IJC has made a finding which it supports. I will conclude by expressing the hope that when we
Oral Questions
go to Washington on Monday of next week the United States authorities will be receptive to what I assure hon. members will be the strong representations made.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before carrying on with the debate I might indicate to hon. members that this sort of proceeding always places the Chair in a dilemma. A motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 of course requires the unanimous consent of the House only for its presentation for debate. Accordingly, when consent is given and the motion is put, it is before the House as a debatable motion, and that debate is now under way. Only on rare occasions does such a debate occur, but when it does it stands a risk-and it is no longer a risk but a reality-of running into conflict with Standing Order 15, particularly paragraph (2) of that order, which reads as follows:
Not more than two minutes after the reading of prayers, the business of the House shall commence. Members, other than Ministers of the Crown, may propose motions pursuant to Standing Order 43 at this time. Not later than 2.15 p.m. or 11.15 a.m., as the case may be-
And there we have the application directly to this morning's proceedings-
-oral questions shall be taken up.
And oral questions are to be concluded by 12 noon. Obviously, it is in our interest, when a few remarks are likely to be made by way of a very short debate, that I should exercise some leniency with respect to the beginning of the question period. As I say, the motion is a debatable one, but I am nevertheless under an obligation to proceed to questions in accordance with Standing Order 15. In the circumstances, I feel I should begin the question period now and listen to argument later as to whether we should resume the debate at the end of the question period.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Finance. It arises out of a press conference yesterday at which the minister solemnly laid to rest the government's undertaking made during the 1974 election campaign to assist in the development of urban transportation. As a matter of fact, on June 5, 1974, the Prime Minister, referring to that promise, said that while other election promises were just election promises, Liberal promises would not be pie in the sky.
My question to the minister, who now runs the risk of being buried just as that promise was buried yesterday, is this. What
3184

February 18, 1977
Oral Questions
does he have to say to the one in every four of the people of this country who have to depend on urban transit to get to their places of employment and to their residences in view of the reneging yesterday of this solemn undertaking made by the Prime Minister in 1974 to provide full cost of developing and building urban transit facilities in this country?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would remind that group to which the hon. gentleman refers that there has been a widespread expression of concern by the colleagues of the hon. gentleman and by many other people in Canada regarding the rate of inflation in Canada and that as part of the anti-inflation program the rate of growth of expenditures of the federal government is to be progressively reduced over a period of time. The day before yesterday my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, tabled estimates, and I think the hon. member for Vegreville agreed with the notion that we should reduce federal expenditures. Indeed, arriving at that conclusion has been awkward and hard, as has been the choice in many other areas, the federal government will not be able to extend its assistance to municipalities which we had hoped to assist in earlier years.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would remind the minister that the rate of inflation in 1974 when this promise was made was considerably higher than it is now; we had double digit inflation at that time, but that was not a consideration when the Prime Minister made the promise. In view of the fact that the minister's colleague in charge of housing and urban affairs is now in Edmonton in pursuit of an attempt to get agreement between the provinces and municipalities to resume tri-level discussions of the new policies, and in view of the fact that the situation is urgent, does the minister intend to put in place, to assist municipalities and hard pressed metropolitan areas of this country which embrace 75 per cent of the population, measures to relieve the pressures on them of this population growth?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in reply to his first remarks I would remind the hon. gentleman that the rate of inflation is indeed down, and down in part because of the decision of this government to exercise that kind of economic restraint. I find it a rather peculiar priority which the hon. gentleman has; he would sooner have 11 per cent inflation and an increase in government expenditure.


James Aloysius McGrath: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It is precisely because the rate of inflation is down that the minister should discharge this solemn promise made in 1974. In view of these studies and the projection arising out of these studies which were made by his colleague, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, that by the turn of the century half of the population of this country will be living in three large metropolitan areas, thereby putting increasing pressures on urban transportation facilities, and in view of the substantial energy savings of $5 billion estimated over the next 25 years if we can increase our urban transit capacity in this country, would the minister take a look at these studies by his colleague, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, and his

colleague the minister of energy, which are now underway and, in consultation with them, come up with some kind of costsharing program to meet the serious problem which is facing our cities and our provinces?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we are about to deal today with a provision having to do with the cost-sharing program whereby, as part of this government's priorities, we transfer fiscal room and responsibility to the provincial governments for the purpose of discharging provincial programs, such as those dealing with urban transit. In that sense we are making substantial financial room available to the provinces. In my own province this has been the obligation of the province of Ontario, and under these particular circumstances we think it reasonable that the provinces should continue as they have in the past to assist in the evolution of urban transit.
So far as transportation is concerned I go back to my basic point, that we are in the process of reducing the share of the gross national product taken by the federal government and this, of course, inevitably involves a reduction in major spending programs.


REASON FOR GIVING PRIORITY TO AIRPORT CONSTRUCTION OVER URBAN TRANSIT
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance and has to do with priorities. Given that the federal government has invested massive amounts of public funds in air transportation facilities and projects, such as the white elephant at Mirabel and the stillborn Pickering proposal, which will serve at best only 10 per cent of the Canadian population, would the minister indicate why priority was given to these projects which presumably has resulted in the minister's having to make his statement yesterday that there is now no money to invest in urban transportation which could serve 75 per cent of the Canadian population?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 
SUGGESTED SALE OF PICKERING AIRPORT SITE AND CN TOWER AND INVESTMENT OF PROCEEDS IN URBAN TRANSIT
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Again I direct my question to the Minister of Finance. As I understood that railways were also a federal responsibility and as the current estimated cost at Pickering as it now stands is $110 million and the CN Tower has cost $60 million, would the minister indicate if any study has been completed or undertaken on the feasability of selling either or both of these projects with a view to investing the proceeds so as to relieve the current chronic commuter congestion in the Toronto area?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: One of
the conclusions that we have arrived at-and it seems to me to be a sensible one-is that one should entrust the management of CNR to the president and the officers of that corporation and let them manage. As a management decision, they have chosen to go ahead with the CN Tower, and I for one as Minister of Finance, as well as my colleagues, do not propose to lean over their shoulder and give them management direction. I say: if you have a good manager, let him manage.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, has the minister ridden on the commuter train at rush hour going into the Toronto area so as to experience at first-hand the congestion on that service and, if so, how can he say that priority should not be given?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: He has a chauffeur.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. gentleman is expressing a grievance. It is a condemnation which I think he should address to his friends at Queen's Park.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Trudeau promised it.


An hon. Member:: And Sharp did, too.


PROPOSAL TO USE OIL COMPENSATION FUND TO AID IN DEVELOPMENT OF URBAN TRANSIT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance as well. Since the Prime Minister in his great election promise of 1974 made a specific reference to the need for more energy-conserving forms of transportation, and since the federal government has saved more than $300 million as a result of the excessive revenue over payments that came in during 1976 from the special tax for oil compensation payments to Atlantic Canada, if we are to take the government's promises seriously, why will the federal government not allocate that $300 million to pay for the $290 million election promise it made in 1974 in the field of rapid transportation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think it has been a sound policy of the government, suggested, among others, by the Glassco Commission, in which we have sought, in the administration of public funds, to avoid earmarking sources against expenditures. In this regard we
Oral Questions
have reached the conclusion that we have some priorities in discharging public responsibility and we have made a decision to do that. I would remind the hon. gentleman that while it is true, under programs which have protected the eastern Canadian market against a cost increase we have been able to keep the costs down and have not had to meet the heavy expenditures because of a lower oil price increase than we anticipated. One cannot be certain about the future and, indeed, where an oil price increase might take us.


WITHDRAWAL OF COMMITMENT TO PAY PART OF CAPITAL COST OF RAPID TRANSIT LINE TO SCARBOROUGH
John Edward Broadbent: Since the general manager of the Toronto Transit Commission has indicated that because the federal government has reneged on its commitment to pay 25 per cent of the capital costs on a proposed rapid transit line to Scarborough the Toronto Transit Commission will not be able to proceed with the planned project, can the minister say if the withdrawal of the commitment to pay 25 per cent of the cost is a complete withdrawal from financial responsibility, or will the federal government put up some money to pay the cost for this needed facility and, if so, how much?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As I
indicated yesterday, we have appropriated substantial funds for each of the provinces for the purpose of a range of priorities with regard to urban transportation, urban transit, commuter traffic, rail relocation, and level crossing improvement. As I indicated to the chairman and the mayors of metropolitan Toronto yesterday, we were really seeking guidance from those gentlemen as to how those priorities should be indicated. It is, of course, a matter for decision also with the provincial government as to the allocation of those priorities, but I think that if the provinces choose, for example, to seek assistance in urban transit from the funds now made available rather than improvement in grade separations, indeed my colleague, the Minister of Transport, will have to give that his serious consideration.


EFFECT OF WITHDRAWAL OF COMMITMENT TO AID IN DEVELOPMENT OF URBAN TRANSIT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Finance, in the absence of the Prime Minister, considering that the municipal planning of virtually every city from St. John's in the east to Vancouver on the west coast has been fundamentally put in jeopardy by this government's decision to renege on its 1974 election promise, does the minister not agree that not only has the government upset municipal planning because of this decision but it has also contributed substantially to public cynicism about politicians in this country?


Some hon. Members:: Liberal politicians.


John Edward Broadbent: The government is completely withdrawing from what were allegedly serious election promises.
80008-64%

February 18, 1977
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We have a federal system of government, and the provincial governments are given very full powers, and by the arrangements, for example, that we will be debating today they are given substantial fiscal means to discharge this particular responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


ELECTION EXPENSES
Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
It has to do with the report on contributions to political parties. At the end of December 1976, I obtained from Mr. Hamel's office all reports on contributions to political parties for the year ending December 31, 1975, except that of the Liberal party. I have been told that it will not be ready before the end of June 1977. Could the minister inform the House whether this is a normal situation, what are the reasons for such a delay and is there in the law a deadline for such presentation. The reason I ask this question is that I need the report at the end of May 1977 at the latest.


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, this is the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue (Miss Begin).


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I thought it was the Minister of Manpower and Immigration because all the correspondence I received was signed by that minister. I apologize, and I shall direct my question to the Minister of National Revenue in the hope that she will give me an answer or investigate.


Hon.   Monique@: It
will be a pleasure for me to do so, Mr. Speaker.


URBAN AFFAIRS
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the senior member in the cabinet from Toronto, the Minister of Finance. Does he not believe that in rejecting the 1974 promise he has cast aside a good industrial policy for the country, and does he not believe that some kind of a direction towards an urban transit system in Canada would be a good measure for saving energy?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated previously, it is not an either-or question in so far as either the saving of energy, the convenience of urban living or, indeed, with regard to industrial policy. There are substantial resources and responsibilities at the provincial level for the purpose of carrying out these kinds of improvements in our community, and I see no difficulty in their proceeding with the policy.


Mr, Horner:: We on this side of the House are greatly concerned about the priorities of the government. It seems to have $60 million to buy Canadair and $40 million to buy de Havilland; why does the government not have some money to direct toward the system which the people are using and really want to improve?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is an argumentative nature to the question. The hon. member for Don Valley.


IMPORTANCE OF DEVELOPMENT OF TORONTO HARBOUR FRONT IN RELATION TO RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance. I would like to ask him why one election promise, namely the harbour front, was kept in Toronto, whereas this one has been thrown out. Is it the position of the government that the harbour front is more important to the people of Toronto than a rapid transit system?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I point out to the hon. gentleman that the acquisition of the harbour front was achieved before the time, and with respect to our expenditures, we set ourselves upon the course-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Mr. Phoney.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The funds for the harbour front were expended before we set on the present course of reducing government expenditures.


An hon. Member:: This must be very embarrassing for you, Don.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of special considerations which have been granted to people in wheelchairs, people who are bedridden or blind-and that consideration is a special tax deduction of $1,420-would the minister comment as to whether he Finds this equitable since two of those categories, those who are blind and those who are in
February 18, 1977

wheelchairs, are able to work? Does he not feel that there should be an extension of the concept of "disabled" so that other people who are unable to work can have the same kind of tax deduction?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is asking essentially the kind of question which should normally be dealt with in a budget. 1 will take his question as a representation.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, and it is in connection with Manitoba's concern about an announced intention not to proceed with construction of a defence research establishment in Winnipeg. 1 would like to ask the minister what the status of that particular establishment is at the present time, since it was indicated to Manitobans by the former minister of national defence that this would be one of the priorities the government would be looking at.


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, that project is in temporary suspension, primarily because I want to take a look at the rationalization of the scientific research and development and industrial processes in the Department of National Defence in relation to our other industrial efforts. I think we want to look for things which will serve the best long term interests of Winnipeg and all of western Canada and also to rationalize our defence purchasing so that it is to the best advantage of Canadian industry and the armed forces.


Jack Burnett Murta: If that is the case, the conclusion must then be drawn that the announement of the former minister was purely political. If there has been a postponement, is it still the intention of the government to locate the research centre in Winnipeg or in Manitoba if the project goes ahead?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I think that if there is a need for that facility, it will go ahead as planned by my predecessor, certainly in the interests of the people of Manitoba and western Canada, but I am taking a somewhat different look at these establishments right across the country at the present time.


Jack Burnett Murta: I would like to ask one short supplementary question. What time frame does the minister have for the decision? In other words, when can we expect the decision as to whether there will be a defence research establishment built in Manitoba?


Barnett Jerome Danson: My colleague, the minister from Manitoba, is continually asking the same questions, but much more forcefully. I do not want to give a deadline. I have a task to do, and I want to pursue it properly. I do not want to set any artificial
Oral Questions
limits to which I cannot adhere. I am having discussions with my colleagues, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of State for Science and Technology, so that we can have a rational program which serves the interests of the country well. I hope that this can be completed within six months or a year. I hope it will not take longer.


An hon. Member:: Just before the election.


IMMIGRATION
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, and it concerns a matter I have raised with the minister and with his office on several occasions, namely, the refusal by the government to allow Professor Gunder-Frank, an internationally known scholar, to take part in a symposium on world development at Queen's University.
Given that the minister has received many representations to reverse his decision because of the very real bewilderment and dismay at his fiat refusal to admit Dr. Gunder-Frank with no explanation, given that we on this side of the House have consistently stressed the need for freedom of information legislation, and until that worthwhile goal is achieved would the minister undertake to show the file on Dr. Gunder-Frank to a Privy Councillor on the opposition side of the House for another assessment of the case so that it can be ascertained in an impartial manner whether there are indeed justified grounds for the minister's refusal?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, one of the things which concerns me and about which I feel very strongly is academic freedom. I understand that the lecture of Dr. Gunder-Frank will be given but will be read by someone else, so there is no closing out of his ideas.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: How generous.


Walter David Baker: This is one of the funniest question periods I've ever seen.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the opposition is really serious; I am really sorry.


Mr. Alexander:: You don't have anything else to say.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I wonder if the minister would address himself to the question I put with regard to whether this file

February 18, 1977
Oral Questions
could be made available to a Privy Councillor on the opposition side to ascertain whether there are justified grounds for the refusal.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: As Harry Truman once said, the buck stops here. I take my responsibility seriously. I am satisfied that I have made the right decision. I am satisfied with my sources of information but I feel that I have to protect them. We are dealing with a matter of national security. I am satisfied that the decision I have made is correct. Today, I am meeting with representatives of the Canadian Association of University Teachers to hear their representation. I am not cutting out any representations from hon. members opposite or from this side, but in the final analysis I have to make a decision in the interests of security. I have made it, and I am satisfied that it is correct. I am also satisfied that the said professor knows why he is not coming into this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Now that the budget of the Canadian International Development Agency has been increased to $1.1 billion, has the minister investigated the Auditor General's statement with respect to CIDA that, and I quote: "Certain countries do not honour their commitments", and can the minister tell the House what countries are involved and what corrective action has been taken?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am in the process at the moment of setting up a full scale discussion and examination of questions regarding CIDA, in which the one the hon. member has posed will be very prominent. However, I do not have a definitive answer for him today, nor can I name the countries involved, but I will do so at the earliest possible moment.


Douglas Roche: I wish to express the hope that the minister will make that statement at the earliest opportunity in order to sustain public support for the whole operation of CIDA. Is it the intention of the government to maintain a high level of aid to Indonesia, which is now at $37 million a year, without ever once publicly protesting the violation of human rights in that country, where 35,000 political prisoners are being held without trial?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, once again I should like to take the question as notice and examine the details of our aid to Indonesia. I think the hon. member, probably better than

anyone in the House, knows that the basic position we adopt with regard to international aid is that it is aimed at the ordinary and very poor people of a country. It is questionable whether we should seek to tie our aid to any kind of ideological questions or anything of that nature. The question is extremely complex. I want to give the hon. member a full answer and I would ask him to have patience until I examine it in detail and then I will do so.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Acting Prime Minister but he seems to be wandering around like a lost soul in purgatory this morning. I therefore direct the question to the Minister of Finance, the next senior minister. My question concerns the taping yesterday of a program for the Global television network in which eight cabinet ministers participated, in which it is reported that four of the cabinet ministers attacked the CBC for its lack of fairness-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -in the
debate between federalism and separatism. The Secretary of State said that he is anxious that the CBC resolve the issue of objectivity and balance. The government leader in the Senate said that "if it doesn't fulfil that mandate, then we parliamentarians must be prepared to take action." The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce went further and said, speaking of federalism-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member ought perhaps to put his question without further preamble.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to accuse the ministers of attacking the CBC unless I quote them. May I just quote one more briefly? The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said of federalism, "I am speaking freely about it, if I were on the CBC it would not be carried." These are very serious allegations.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I want to ask the government if it considers that the CBC is not giving a fair and balanced view-


Mr. Lalonde:: Have you watched it?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -of the
debate between federalism and separatism, does it not have the responsibility either to change the management of CBC or to defend a publicly owned broadcasting corporation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has referred to statements made which would indicate that there is a feeling I think among many federalists from the province of Quebec that Radio-Canada is not discharging its mandate above all to work for the unity of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Right.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: This is surely one of its fundamental purposes. I would recognize the difficulties posed by the hon. gentleman in the sense that we have a national broadcasting corporation which is given a certain mandate by parliament and if there is a feeling on the part of the government that the mandate is not being discharged, as to whether action should be taken.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Take away its licence.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. gentleman opposite suggests we take away its licence. At this point I would not make a further comment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I think this is a matter which should be widely discussed, not only by members on this side but by members opposite, to find some effective means of carrying out parliament's mandate with regard to preserving the country and to find out if indeed that mandate has been discharged by the CBC.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Send it to the broadcasting committee.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is a public body financed by the taxpayers of Canada, reporting to parliament through the Secretary of State, and that the government appoints the board of governors and appoints the management, surely any dissatisfaction with the manner in which the CBC conducts its affairs is the responsibility of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Parliament.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am therefore asking the government if it is prepared to document its criticisms of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and, if those are well founded, to take the appropriate action it thinks ought to be taken rather than go on a competing television network and criticize its own broadcasting corporation.


An hon. Member:: They have not got the guts to do anything about it.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman in the past has often laid heavy stress on the fact that the CBC is not in any sense under the exclusive jurisdiction of the government of Canada and that other members of parliament and other parties have some deep concern about how it is operated. It seems to me that one of the more effective ways of
Oral Questions
engaging in a further examination of this question would be to do so within one of the committees of this House.


An hon. Member:: Okay.


An hon. Member:: Fair enough.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I suspect that my colleagues the Secretary of State and the President of the Privy Council would be quite prepared to have a further occasion upon which not only members of this side of the House but others can pass judgment on whether or not the corporation has carried out its mandate. Of course, it is the ultimate responsibility of the government to take a decision in this regard. On a matter concerning the broadcasting corporation, I think it has to be the concern in all corners of the House.


SUGGESTED REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE OF ALLEGATION
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. If the government does not have the intestinal fortitude to deal with this matter itself, is it prepared to refer the matter to a standing committee of the House of Commons so that it may be fully investigated and that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation may have an opportunity to defend itself and that the Canadian people may know whether the government tends to equate itself with unity and is criticizing the CBC more for the fact that it is not willing to be the slave of the Liberal party rather than that it is not supporting federalism?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, that is just exactly what I said. We would be quite prepared to have a committee decision.


An hon. Member:: Then do it.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I hope the hon. gentlemen will have the courage as well, if they find that indeed Radio Canada has not been maintaining the unity of Canada, to criticize the corporation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I will.


Marc Lalonde: You never watch it; you do not know what you are talking about.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is jumping on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to be a substitute or an excuse for a government that seems unable to reconcile the strains of confederation? That is the point.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I wonder whether the hon. gentleman might not want to participate in the discussions in the committee on this particular question and perhaps seek to make up his-

February 18, 1977
Oral Questions


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: With a little more objectivity than your ministers showed yesterday, I will do it.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. gentleman has obviously made up his mind already. Perhaps he is not so objective.


Marc Lalonde: Do you watch it?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Every day.


INCOME TAX
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. Several days ago the minister indicated she would be meeting with Indian groups to discuss the question of a proposed change in tax law which would no longer permit Indian bands to treat income the same way that income would be treated in the hands of Canadian municipalities. Could the minister give the House some indication of whether a change in policy is coming or how the discussions proceeded?


Hon.   Monique@: Mr. Speaker, the discussions proceeded very well. We have set up a key group of officials of my department who are working in conjunction with officials of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and with representatives of the Indians on better and more fair application of the Income Tax Act on matters of great concern for the Indians. Second, concerning the specific point raised about the eventual change in the interpretation bulletin IT-62 which is the one to which the hon. member refers, I can assure him that the Indian band councils on Indian reserves are considered as Canadian municipalities. Should any change be envisaged in the future, consultations will take place.


ARSENIC POLLUTION-MINISTER'S VIEW OF LEVEL AT YELLOWKNIFE IN RELATION TO HEALTH
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Does the minister, together with his officials, have reason to believe that arsenic levels in Yellowknife constitute a significant danger to human health and the environment? Mr. Speaker, I do not think the minister was listening to me.


Marc Lalonde: I was waiting for the hon. member to sit down.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Did the minister hear me?


Marc Lalonde: Sure.


Robert Hylton Brisco: May we please have an answer?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, several studies have been made on the reports published about that subject. Of course, the matter is very controversial. That is why I have asked the Canadian Public Health Association to set up a work committee made up of independent experts. That committee has been asked to make a complete review of all studies made to date and to undertake any additional study that may be deemed necessary to establish, once and for all, whether mining operations in Yellowknife do present health hazards and, if so, to find out how to improve the situation and eliminate what dangers exist.


ARSENIC POLLUTION-REASON FOR ALLEGED FAILURE TO APPOINT ADVISORY BOARD TO STUDY PROBLEM
Robert Hylton Brisco: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the minister yesterday, when responding to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, denied that he had any responsibility in this matter, and since the Environmental Contaminants Act authorizes the minister to set up an advisory board which can review these problems, I ask, why did the minister not appoint an advisory board whose mandate would be to look into significant environmental matters?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member failed to understand anything in the exchange of views I had yesterday with the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. I did not deny that my department has some responsibility in that field. The question of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby dealt with a very specific matter, namely the setting up of standards under the Task Force Clean Air Act, which act falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Environment and not mine. That is the question that was dealt with yesterday.
As for the point the hon. member brought up, I did indicate that a working committee was set up by the Canadian Public Health Association, at my request, and with funds supplied by my department. With regard to the other question concerning the environment, I indicated yesterday that a working committee has been set up by the Department of the Environment to determine what new standards might be required. I am sure that the Minister of the Environment will be pleased to answer that question when he comes back to the House.


ARSENIC POLLUTION-SUGGESTION ADVISORY GROUP STUDY PREVIOUS REPORTS
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Since the report which the minister tabled in the House in the fall of 1975 was based on standards accepting as
February 18, 1977

normal ten parts per million of arsenic in human hair and since more recent scientific research findings suggest that levels of one part per million or more can be significant in causing the destruction of human nervous systems and thereby call in question the validity of the previous report, will the minister tell the House if he will ask the working group to which he just referred to consider the previous report in the light of the new findings concerning significant levels of arsenic in hair?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member's question, I would like to indicate first that all the studies I considered as well as all the comments I have heard are to the effect that no judgment can be made solely on the basis of the arsenic levels in the hair, and that urinalyses must also be made particularly to know the arsenic level there could be in the whole system and not only in the hair.
As for the second part of the hon. member's question, I would say that the working group set up by the Canadian Public Health Association has broad terms of reference which will permit it to consider even the standards referred to and to see whether such standards should be more restrictive.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, may I ask another supplementary question? The minister seems to have missed the point of my question. He indicated that other tests have been done. That is the point. The research report which he tabled was not based on arsenic levels in hair of less than ten parts per million, and for that reason I suggest that the report is totally invalid. The experiments should be reviewed and more studies carried out. The tests to which he referred must be carried out on all whose hair contains one part per million or more of arsenic. That was the question I wanted the minister to answer.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I will not argue with the hon. member on the scientific value of such or such report. This is why an independent group appointed by the Canadian Association of Public Health will assess all those reports and will also submit a report which will be made public. And if this working group comes to the conclusion that the previous reports were somewhat deficient, 1 would be glad to agree with the hon. member.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion is engaged in a conference with Quebec ministers. I gave
Oral Questions
notice to his office this morning of my intention to raise a question concerning Metropolitan Area Growth Investment Corporation of Nova Scotia. Perhaps an acting minister can answer my question. In view of the continuing failure of MAGI, funded as a venture capital agency to the tune of $20 million several years ago by the federal government and the government of Nova Scotia to make a meaningful contribution to the Nova Scotia economy, can the acting minister indicate whether the minister or his department have been consulted or, indeed, have approved the multi-million dollar purchase of a cruise ship, by this agency, to operate in the Caribbean?


Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member may know, the minister on his way to New Brunswick last week to sign another multi-million dollar development agreement with one of the Atlantic provinces, made a side trip to Nova Scotia and had discussions with the premier. One of the topics discussed was MAGI. Unfortunately, I do not know the details of those discussions.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I thank the parliamentary secretary for his answer and ask by way of a brief supplementary question whether he is able, in view of the continuing history of controversy surrounding appointments to the executive positions of MAGI, to clarify the present status of Mr. Scott MacNutt, the vice president of MAGI who now appears to be operating in limbo between the Workmen's Compensation Board of Nova Scotia and MAGI?


Mr. Lumley:: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, MAGI is incorporated in the province of Nova Scotia. Its two shareholders, the government of Nova Scotia and the government of Canada, do not become involved in the day-to-day decisions of MAGI.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Since the deputy secretary responsible for the financial administration of the Treasury Board admitted in the public accounts committee yesterday that control of Crown corporations under the Financial Administration Act is inadequate, specifically in that the government does not now have the right to obtain interim financial reports from Crown corporations to which it has lent millions of dollars, I ask the minister what changes are planned in the Financial Administration Act and when we can expect to see them?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, certain plans are under way to amend the Financial Administration Act. When the final decision has been taken it will be made known to the House. It will be soon.

Garrison Diversion


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I ask for the co-operation of the House? We now face a situation which some of us have anticipated for some time. It has now become a reality. A motion presented under the provisions of Standing Order 43 having been put with the consent of the House, debate on it has commenced. That debate was interrupted by another procedure of the House pursuant to a Standing Order.
Two interpretations are possible for the moment. I noted at 11.25 that only one or two other members seemed to be interested in participating in the debate. One of them, the mover of the motion, will close the debate. Perhaps the cooperation of the House may be forthcoming in bringing that debate to a rapid conclusion, particularly as everyone who wants to participate in the debate is anxious to agree.
That being so, it may give us the opportunity to explore more fully the conflict which arises from two interpretations. One of those could be based on Standing Order 45(2) which says that when a debate on a motion is interrupted for another purpose, it is to be transferred to government orders. The second interpretation could be based on a parallel with private members' hour, which in my opinion could be applicable. It is the rule that when an order of the day or a motion is under debate in the House and is interrupted by the private members' hour, that debate is automatically resumed at eight o'clock. There are two parallels. I do not think the House is disposed to argue them without preparation. It may be that after consultation the difficulty can be clarified for the future.
For the moment, I wonder if I might see one or two of those members who were anxious to make a brief comment before the question period was called, and then call the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to conclude the debate. The two hon. members who had the floor earlier were the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain and the hon. member for Lisgar; and then, of course, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It would be acceptable to the House leader for the government-


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Wherever he is.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I am acting House leader.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Jacques Blais: I would simply stress the admonition that you made, Mr. Speaker, that the matter is indeed a very interesting one, and that if you proceed now to hear two further speakers who have been recognized by the Chair the debate will have then been concluded. Any difficulty that may be related to the interpretation of Standing Order 45(2) in the face of the Standing Order which deals with private members' business could be disposed of at some future time. On that specific understanding we would be ready to accept two additional speakers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have only indicated that, in the circumstances which we face, I am seeking the co-operation of the House. If I in any way call the motion and resume it, I have taken that responsibility upon myself. Once I do that it is a debatable motion and there can be no limit. I am only asking for the co-operation of the House. If there is to be any disagreement about that manner of proceeding, I would just as soon take a point of order and made a declaration now as to whether I am to be governed by another proceeding whereby this matter, now having been adjourned automatically by a Standing Order, will be transferred forthwith to government orders and debated when it is called again by the government. If the co-operation of the House is not to be forthcoming in concluding in the way I have suggested, I would just as soon hear the point of order and argument, and then I will make a final decision. Once I call it, if I do, it is open-ended because it is a motion before the House for debate.


Jean-Jacques Blais: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker, there is no consent from the members of the opposition. Therefore, we would like to call a bona fide point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. On the point of order the hon. member for Timiskaming was seeking the floor, and then the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, I have great sympathy with the problem of solving this point of order without considerable debate. I appreciate the remarks made by Your Honour. I do not appreciate the remarks made by the deputy House leader who is indicating his support only if two members are called. All members will co-operate with Your Honour. That is likely the way it is going to be. However, I am violently opposed to the suggestion that was made by the deputy House leader that two speakers would be recognized and then the debate would be finalized. We have great respect for Your Honour's judgment and ability, and will agree to that proposal. I will not agree to the alternate proposal.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, as I read the rules, I thought there were only two ways to cut off debate, namely, by Standing Order 33 and Standing Order 75C. I did not know there was provision for a Standing Order deputy House leader to cut off debate. This is a debatable motion. I think the parties in this House will be responsible in terms of the length of the debate. However, I do not think it lies in the mouth of the deputy House leader to decide for all of us in this House of Commons when debate is going to end.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I thought this was a chamber of reasonable free speech, notwithstanding what the hon. member for Nipissing, the Postmaster General and now the duly annointed Standing Order 33 and Standing Order 75C expert, decides with respect to this matter. The matter is important and urgent because of the imminent departure of the Prime Minister. I think it is debatable and ought to be debated.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of trying to stop the debate; it is trying to interpret the Standing Orders such as they are found and such as they have been approved by all members of this House, including the hon. member for Gren-ville-Carleton. Your Honour was quite right in interrupting the debate on the motion under Standing Order 43 because of Standing Order 15(2) which reads as follows:
Not more than two minutes after the reading of prayers, the business of the House shall commence. Members, other than ministers of the Crown, may propose motions pursuant to Standing Order 43 at this time. Not later than 2:15 p.m., or 11:15 a.m., as the case may be, oral questions shall be taken up. At 3:00 p.m., or 12:00 noon, as the case may be, the House shall proceed to the ordinary daily routine of business, which shall be as follows-
These are mandatory provisions. There is no discretion; there is an obligation. The routine proceedings are then listed as follows: Presenting reports from standing or special committees; tabling of documents (Pursuant to Standing Order 41(2)); statements by ministers; introduction of bills; first reading of Senate public bills; motions (except those permitted before oral questions).
Evidently that Standing Order envisages a situation where motions presented before the question period might attempt to be bootlegged during routine proceedings. The Standing Order makes an express exception of those motions presented prior to the question period. That is not the deputy House leader's motion of closure; it is the Standing Order. Quite clearly, Your Honour was entitled to adjourn the debate on the motion, under Standing Order 43, at 11:15. You allowed an additional ten minutes, and did so at 11:25. However, as Your Honour pointed out, Standing Order 45(2) reads:
When a debate on any motion made prior to the reading of the orders of the day is adjourned or interrupted, the order for resumption of the same shall be transferred to and considered under government orders.
As Your Honour quite properly pointed out, government orders are at the discretion of the government as to the order of their being called. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the House leader indicated the order of business for today to the members of the opposition. It is to be the fiscal relations act. Therefore, this debate on Standing Order 43 had to be interrupted. The effect of that interruption was to transfer the whole of the debate to government orders. It becomes a government order and can only be called when the government chooses to call it.
In fairness to the opposition, and in view of the fact that we advised them as to the nature of business for this day, we intend to proceed with that business. I might call attention, Mr. Speaker, to your ruling when this particular matter was previously debated. At that time Your Honour felt you were bound by Standing Order 15(2), and the proceedings on the debate under Standing Order 43, which took up the whole of the question period, prevented you from holding the question period. I realize this is not directly on the point at issue, but it represents a recognition by yourself, Mr. Speaker, of the effectiveness of Standing Order 15(2). You have found yourself bound, previously, by the mandatory wording of that Standing Order. I submit that in this situation you are again
Garrison Diversion
bound by the provisions of the order and that there is indeed an obligation to proceed now to the orders of the day.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The difficulty, if I might summarize it, is simply this: there are arguments to be made on both sides as to the way in which this matter should be handled. The difficulty is that at 11.15 a.m. hon. members rose to take part in a debate on a motion which was debatable. If they were precipitating a consequence which might have cut off debate on the motion, as well as the finalization of it, they ought to have known that in advance. That is the courtesy I am extending to the hon. members who sought to participate in the debate. I have to say that if I were to enforce the Standing Order strictly, it might very well be that the debate would discontinue and that the question would not be put.
If this was the effect, under the present Standing Orders, of participation in the debate by two or three members, however briefly, they ought to have known at the time that they were running the risk of not having the question decided by the House before Monday's event which, after all, gave rise to the motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 in the first place. That ought to have been known in advance.
For that reason, therefore, rather than attempting to finalize the point of order at this moment I am attempting to extend a courtesy to hon. members who wanted to make a brief comment, and then call the question, leaving open for proper preparation of argument the means by which we should reconcile the difficulty between the provisions of Standing Order 43 and Standing Order 15(2). If I were permitted to do this, it might be the simplest way out of the dilemma at the moment. In doing it, I would propose to call now the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain, the hon. member for Lisgar and then the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who would finalize the debate before the question is put. That might be the easiest way out. Otherwise, I will listen to further argument on the point of order and make a decision as to whether or not the matter should be transferred to government orders, which might very well be the case.


Walter David Baker: If I may say so, Mr. Speaker, I think that what you are proposing is quite reasonable. It is important that we establish once and for all how Standing Order 43 is to be interpreted. The rule itself talks about matters of urgent and pressing necessity-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I thought I had made it clear that if I am to do this, I will do it. If I am to hear argument or discussion on the point of order, I will do that and decide the point of order.


Walter David Baker: I know, Mr. Speaker, and I am quite agreeable.


An hon. Member:: So is everybody.


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to do as the Secretary of

February 18, 1977
Garrison Diversion
State for External Affairs suggested and let the House of Commons contribute a little input to the message which our Prime Minister will carry to President Carter.
On the subject of the waters of western Canada and the western plains, I hope somebody carries the message to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that Mexico has the same problem. I understand that two years ago the Americans and the Mexicans were discussing putting a dam on the Colorado so that the saline waters which come from all the irrigation upstream could be held back in the United States. I suggest to the Prime Minister that if he drew attention to this similar problem which arose between the Mexicans and the Americans, and drew a parallel with the Souris River in Manitoba, it would be helpful to us while at the same time being helpful to the Americans.
The second point I wish to make is this: our Prime Minister should explain to the President that we have plans ready in western Canada to put dams on the Souris River to divert waters in the Canadian section of that river right into Manitoba directly and not have to go through the United States to pollute their area. If these two points could be brought to the attention of the delegation which is going with the Prime Minister, when he expresses the feelings of Canadians with regard to the developments on the American side in connection with the Garrison project particularly he would have positive and constructive proposals to put forward which would make it easier for President Carter to reach a solution to this matter.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I find myself one of the final speakers in this debate because the Garrison diversion project, if and when it goes ahead and has an adverse effect on Manitoba waters, will probably affect my constituency, which is located right on the American border, as much as any other in Manitoba.
I suppose that the Postmaster General in his remarks was actually consuming more time than the debate would take. The topic we are discussing now is certainly one of the most important we could be considering at this time, in view of the fact that we face a situation in which the Prime Minister will soon be discussing the matter with the President of the United States.
I should like to sketch very briefly the happenings which led to the motion being put forward today, and refer to the requests made by various members of parliament, certainly by members of the opposition, and the reasons for them. On January 25 the hon. member for Selkirk who, along with the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and myself has been putting as much pressure as possible on the government to act, asked the hon. member for St. Boniface, the minister responsible for Manitoba, if he would assure the House that the Prime Minister would raise the Garrison issue with the President of the United States as a matter of priority and urgency.
In response, we heard the hon. member for St. Boniface make the flippant, offhand remark, "Ask the Prime Minister." A remark of that kind does not instil confidence in the people of Manitoba. It does not lead them to think that something is

to be done. It was interesting to note this morning that the hon. member for St. Boniface was virtually breaking his arm off by patting himself on the back for everything that has happened up to this point.
The whole question arose on February 7 when I asked the Prime Minister if he would make sure that the Garrison diversion project was high among the priorities as far as his talks with President Carter were concerned. The answer given to me was very unclear and uncertain: there was nothing positive about it. On February 17 positive action was taken, once again by the hon. member for Selkirk. I believe the House will congratulate him on his efforts on behalf of those concerned about the Garrison issue. What the hon. member for Selkirk did was write to the President of the United States urging him to place this matter high on the agenda of the discussions. It is interesting to note that within a few hours the Prime Minister corresponded with the Liberal leader in Manitoba and also, I gather, with the President of the United States, indicating that he was now prepared to put the Garrison diversion project on the agenda.
That action by my hon. friend, coming as it did at a crucial time, will assure the Garrison diversion project and the whole circumstances of construction as far as the Lonetree reservoir is concerned being talked about by the two North American leaders. The appalling thing, though, is that when the announcement was made, after members of the opposition in this House had tried, unsuccessfully, over a long period to get an assurance from the government, it was made in Manitoba through the leader of the Manitoba Liberals. It was a cheap political trick to try to maximize on something which was, in effect, forced upon them primarily by the hon. member for Selkirk.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: This is a non-partisan matter.


Jack Burnett Murta: It certainly should be non-partisan, as the hon. member says. What we in Manitoba hope, and certainly what the members of the House of Commons should hope, is that the past stance of the President of the United States on environmental matters will carry itself through and that the President will, in effect, intervene in the Garrison study, and by intervening will hold up construction on Garrison projects, specifically the Lonetree reservoir which will affect Canadian waters, until the International Joint Commission's report has been issued. I think all members on this side of the House, and certainly most people in Manitoba, are willing to wait until the International Joint Commission's report has been brought down. We hope that President Carter, in his wisdom, will recommend a halt until that report is brought down.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I should repeat my warning, to be technically correct, that when the hon. member for Winnipeg North
February 18, 1977

Centre speaks he will close the debate. Prior to calling the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre I had indicated that I would defer a point of order to be raised by the Minister without Portfolio. Perhaps I should do that now.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get into the debate. All I want to say is that I did make representations several times to the Prime Minister. I believe that I am entitled to do so, just as any member can make private representations to any minister. In my particular case, because I cannot raise a question in the House, I thought this was the best thing for me to do, and I have done exactly what I should in respect to my responsibility to the people of my province.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief, and I hope that when the motion has been passed it will be the words of the motion which will speak for the House of Commons on this issue today. I recognize, as has been demonstrated by the speeches which have been made, that this is an issue on which there can be a good deal of political infighting, efforts to claim credit, and all of that. Much of what has been said this morning is true. But my feeling and my motive in putting down the motion was that now that the point has been reached where the Prime Minister is going to discuss the matter with President Carter and is going to request the deferral of any further work on the Lonetree reservoir, we should express our pleasure and let the Prime Minister know that, for all the bickering that there is back here in the House of Commons, we support his efforts in Washington in presenting Canadian interests with respect to the whole Garrison project.
References have been made to all of those who have taken part. I am going to refer to a couple, obviously to put their names on the record but also for the purpose of underlining what the hon. member for Lisgar has just said, namely, that this issue has been around with us for a long while. I would remind members of the House who were here prior to 1974 that the former member for Assiniboia, Mr. William Knight, and the former member for Selkirk, Mr. Douglas Rowland, along with others of us were raising questions and speaking about this matter in the House on "late shows" in the twenty-ninth parliament. So the issue has been around a long while, and I want to give credit to all of those who have raised this issue in one way or another. I also give credit to the International Joint Commission for the study it has done thus far and for the preliminary position which that body has taken. It is really tremendous to get an international body with equal representation from both sides of the border to produce the kind of preliminary observation it has made.
So, Mr. Speaker, now that the Prime Minister is going to Washington, and now we know what he is going to do, even if we learned it through the publication by Mr. Huband of Manitoba of a telegram that he received from the Prime Minister, the thing for us to do is to say to Washington, to say to President Carter, to say to the Americans, that we are behind the Prime Minister in his request that work on the Lone Tree reservoir be deferred; and beyond that, we are with
Order Paper Questions
him in the efforts that we trust he will make on behalf of Canada to protect Canadian waters against pollution by the Garrison project.
It has been a long, hard struggle, Mr. Speaker. I have been as disappointed as my friends to the right in the kind of answers that we have had from the government. But as of today the word is that the Prime Minister is going to raise the issue, and I hope that the House will say unanimously that we are behind him in doing so.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It has been moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands;
That this House welcomes the announcement that the Prime Minister will discuss with President Carter, during his forthcoming visit to Washington, the Garrison diversion project in North Dakota, and further that this House unanimously endorses the stand the Prime Minister has said he will take to the effect that work on the Lone Tree reservoir be deferred, pending a review of the whole project and of this country's concern over its effects on Canadian waters, particularly in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, which is being made by the International Joint Commission.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: I should indicate, in respect of the procedural difficulty which we faced, that it would seem that positions on both sides of the question were adequately guarded by argument, and far from being in a position to set aside or disregard those arguments, they are very much in my mind. I think we ought first to have a discussion of the matter to see whether there is a solution which would meet the approval of all parties. In any case, if the matter remains in conflict, I would certainly invite discussion which would give an opportunity to all members who want to participate to have a proper preparation period.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, if that is the suggestion it is certainly agreeable to us.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ross Milne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 205, 581, 1,011, 1,138, 1,139, 1,193 and 1,495.

February 18, 1977
Order Paper Questions
[ Text]


Mr. Marshall: What amount of money has been allocated to each province under the Residential Rehabilitation Programme (NIP) and Rural and Native Housing since its inception?


Hon. Andr6 Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: Loans approved for Residential Rehabilitation since the inception of the program in 1974, are shown in the following table.
Loans Approved1 for Residential Rehabilitation, NHA Section 34.1 by Province and Territory, 1974-September, 1976
Provinces
and
Territories
Newfoundland
Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia
New Brunswick
Quebec
Ontario
Manitoba
Saskatchewan
Alberta
British Columbia Yukon Territory Northwest Territories
Canada
1 Data are gross.
Neighbourhood Improvement and Designated Areas	
Units	$000
565	2,386
266	1,030
430	1,916
761	2,850
1,015	5,753
2,776	10,653
576	2,245
1,373	3,796
975	3,043
1,816	5,050
10,553	38,722
Rural and Native Housing
Units	$000
57	201
348	1,335
42	175
1,129	2,652
170	809
3	10
67	199
305	1,001
92	364
2	15
1	10
2,216	6,771


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Does the Cabinet plan to announce a decision regarding the allocation of departmental responsibility of the Coast Guard on the Pacific Coast and, if so, on what date?
2.	Will the Minister of Transport indicate what is the policy with respect to the funding of the Coast Guard Auxiliary, since in Delta, volunteers have already undergone training but are impeded by lack of formulation of policy and fund finances?


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Prime Minister's and Privy Council Offices and Transport Canada as follows: 1. The Coast Guard is the responsibility of the Minister of Transport.
2.	It is intended that funding for the Coast Guard Auxiliary will provide reimbursement to members for out-of-pocket expenses, such as fuel, incurred while engaged in rendering assistance at the request of federal rescue authorities. It is proposed to proceed with the formation of the Coast Guard Auxiliary as soon as possible on a national basis. Membership will include the existing members of the Canadian Coast Guard Volunteer Rescue Agent organization as well as other volunteers, mainly small vessel or boat owners, who would make themselves available to help in emergencies. The Canadian Coast Guard will assist with the organization and training of auxiliary units and it is not the intention that auxiliarists would be paid. However, the possibility of providing some form of insurance coverage for individuals and their boats while engaged on rescue operations is being investigated.


Mr. Howie: Order Paper Questions
Net Loans for New Housing Approved Under the NHA, 1973-1975-Fredericton, Sunbury and York Counties, New Brunswick
1973	1974	1975Location and Program	Hostel	Hostel	HostelLoans Units Beds $000 Loans Units Beds	$000 Loans Units Beds $000
Sec. 15 Sec. 15.1 Sec. 34.15 Sec. 40 Sec. 43 Sec. 58 Sec. 59
3
20	4	4	93	7	7	- 18012	82	- 1,598156	57	1	i	-	20	1	1	- 30
Sec. 15 Sec. 15.1 Sec. 34.15 Sec. 40 Sec. 43 Sec. 58 Sec. 59
8
54
3	-
1	_	30 39142	6	6	- 1472	17	- 33559	5	5	- 139
Sunbury County
Low Rental Non-Profit
Assisted Home-ownership Federal-Provincial Public Housing Home-ownership Indians on Reserve
York County
Low Rental Non-Profit
Assisted Home-ownership Federal-Provincial Public Housing Home-ownership Indians on Reserve
1 Reduction in loans initially approved in an earlier year.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton): 1.	Has the Task Force on decentralization finished its final report for submission to the Minister and, if not, on what date is the report expected?
2.	Is it the intention of the Minister to prepare a white paper based on the Task Force Report, for submission to Parliament and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, on what date?
3.	Did the terms of reference of the Task Force include directions to study, as did those for the report "A Review of the Possibility of Dispersing More Government Work from London", by Sir Henry Hardman of the United Kingdom, the (a) precise estimated economic benefits which would accrue to areas where government functions are to be located (b) loss in communications efficiency of dispersed government operations and (i) if so, will the government include this information in any white paper prepared for Parliament (ii) if not, are such factors being considered, in what manner and by whom?


Hon. Jean Chrltien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. The Task Force on Decentralization was set up to examine the feasibility of relocating different government units from the N.C.R. It should be noted that prime factors considered are each unit's ability to operate effectively in locations other than the N.C.R. without duplicating existing facilities and the ability of these locations to support the operational needs of the unit. The process is continuous and no date for completion has been established. No final report is contemplated.
2.	No. See 1 above, (a) No white paper is contemplated, (b) Not applicable.
3.	(a) No. (b) No. (i) See 1 above, (ii) Yes, by individual departments in consultation with Treasury Board.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton): 1.	What is the total number of Public Service positions which will have been moved out of the National Capital Region under the programme of decentralization by the end of 1986?
2. For the year (a) 1976 (b) 1977 (c) 1978 (d) 1979 (e) 1980 (0 1981 (g) 1982 (h) 1983 (i) 1984 (j) 1985 (k) 1986, how many Public Service positions will be moved out of the National Capital Region?
3.	With reference to the President of the Treasury Board's speech on September 3, 1975, that "... it is clear that as long as only 14 percent of the senior
executives are located outside the National Capital Region, there is a great deal of room for initiative in this area ..what is the government's target percentage figure for executive level location outside the National Capital Region and
on what date does it expect to achieve that target?
4.	(a) What is the government's total projected cost for the decentralization programme to the end of its implementation period, or to 1986, whichever is the sooner and, what are the estimated costs for the (i) movement of departmental facilities (ii) training of personnel recruited to replace those refusing transfer (b) what is the estimated percentage increase in yearly operating costs for those units being moved outside the National Capital Region and what will be the estimated annual cost per unit decentralized for (i) intra-departmental communication (ii) intra-departmental travel (iii) transfers or promotions between geographically separated sections of the same department?
5.	(a) What departmental units or agencies have been identified for future decentralization (b) on what date will such decentralizations take place (c) how many positions are involved (d) what is the government's estimate of the number of positions which will be filled by persons already employed by units or agencies and how many will have to be recruited in the new locations (e) have any discussions taken place with the employees to be affected and, if not, how long before the decentralizations are publicly announced will such consultation take place (f) what was the period of such consultation with employees of the departments and agencies already publicly identified to date for decentralization?
6.	With respect to the municipal areas to which government functions are being moved, have consultations been undertaken with local municipal authorities and (a) if so (i) what are they (ii) what matters were covered (b) if not, for what reason?
7.	Have the municipal authorities involved requested assistance from the government to meet the additional costs of providing services to departments and serviced land to employees and, if so, what was the government's response?
8.	Has the government estimated the total amount of new office space which must be constructed as a result of the decentralization programme and, if so, what total amount of floor space must be provided and what is the estimated cost?
9.	Is there a third phase of the decentralization programme which will move scientific and research establishments out of the National Capital Region and, if so, what units will be involved and where will they be located?
10.	In the case of Public Service positions moved outside the National Capital Region, will second language training facilities be available to the employees and will such training, if provided, increase the overall cost of the bilingual training programme?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. See answer to Parliamentary Question No. 1,138 Part 1 answered this day. Not known.
2.	Not known. For those units already announced figures for permanent positions are as follows (by fiscal year): 1976-77:

February 18, 1977
Order Paper Questions
126; 1977-78: 264; 1978-79: 228; 1979-80: 471; 1980-81: 728; 1981-82: 369.
3.	No target percentages have been set.
4.	(a) See answer to Parliamentary Question No. 1,138 Part 1 answered this day. Since the decentralization program is a continuous process no estimate to 1986 is available, (i) Not applicable, (ii) Not applicable, (b) (i) Not applicable, (ii) Not applicable, (iii) Not applicable.
5.	(a), (b) and (c) See following table, (d) This will not be available until all employees have indicated their preference with regard to relocation, (e) Yes. (f) Individual department officials are involved in relocation plans from the beginning. For those relocations publicly announced, all employees affected were informed prior to public announcement. This is in accordance with procedures which have been recently endorsed by the National Joint Council.
6.	Yes, after the announcement of each relocation, consultations have taken place with appropriate municipal authorities. These meetings conform to federal land management policy
Department	Unit
Unemployment Insurance Commission	Annuities & Central Index
Department of Supply & Services	Superannuation
Department of Veterans Affairs	Pension Commission Board and et al
Department of Supply & Services	Cheque Redemption
Department of National Revenue	Taxation Data Centre
Department of National Revenue	Taxation Data Centre
Department of National Revenue	Taxation Data Centre
Department of National Revenue	Taxation Data Centre
Department of National Revenue	Taxation Data Centre
which requires that municipalities be brought into the planning of facilities in their areas, (a) (i) (ii) Many topics are covered including site selection; identifying number of jobs and size of payroll; determining the services required by facility; discussing effects upon traffic flow; relating operational needs of the unit to the objectives of the host municipality, etc. (b) Not applicable.
7.	To date, no such requests are known.
8.	Yes, for those units where relocation has been approved, total office space required is estimated at 1,905,000 sq. ft. at an approximate capital cost of $135 million.
9.	No, as indicated in the answer to Question No. 1,138 Part 1, answered this day, the program is continuous and, without exception, all departments and agencies, including scientific and research establishments, are subject to consideration.
10.	Consistent with provisions of the official languages policy, second language training facilities will be available. It is not anticipated that this will increase overall cost of the bilingual training program.
Estimated Man-Years	Location	Estimated Timing Fiscal Year390	Bathurst, N.B.	1979-80368	Moncton, N.B.	1981-82630	Charlottetown, P.E.I.	1980-81264	Matane	1977-7881	St. John's, Nfld.	1979-8098	Chicoutimi-Jonquiere, Que.	1980-81124	Shawinigan, Que.	1978-79126	Winnipeg, Man.	1976-77104	Surrey, B.C.	1978-79


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	(a) Which departments, departmental units or agencies are to be shifted from Ottawa during the decentralization exercise (b) what are the dates envisaged for each move (c) how many public servants will be involved in each case?
2.	Have any assurances been given to public servants who may be unwilling to move, that they will be re-assigned laterally to positions in the Ottawa area and, if so (a) what are they (b) will they be given a choice of re-assignment?
3.	Have any provisions been made to deal with the problems created by public servants who may be unwilling to move or to be re-assigned and, if so, what are they?
4.	Are there any domestically oriented provisions envisaged to assist the public servants who are re-located to (a) sell or otherwise dispose of their homes (b) acquire new homes in the new communities (c) get their family belongings to the new communities and, if so, what are they?

5.	Has a cost effectiveness study been carried out on any of the proposed decentralization operations?
6.	To what extent has the foregoing been the subject of discussion with the employees concerned or with the unions representing them?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. (a), (b) and (c) See answer to question No. 1,138 part 1 answered this day.
2.	Yes, while an absolute guarantee of job security cannot of course be given, the government is committed to taking measures on behalf of employees who do not wish to relocate by offering them, where possible, the chance to fill vacant positions in their own departments and by giving them priority consideration for jobs in other departments, (a) Not applicable. (b) Not applicable.
3.	See answer to No. 2.
February 18, 1977

4.	For public servants who relocate the provisions of the Treasury Board Relocation Directive (1975) apply, (a) See Treasury Board Relocation Directive, (b) See Treasury Board Relocation Directive, (c) See Treasury Board Relocation Directive.
5.	Decisions on the relocation of government units from the N.C.R. have been based on an assessment of the impact of relocation in communities selected from the less advantaged regions of Canada, and from the cost impact of conducting government operations away from the N.C.R.
6.	See answer to question No. 1,139 part 5 (0 answered this day.


Mr. McKenzie: 1. What was the purpose and final findings of the Department of Supply and Services Science Contract Number (a) 01SU 23233-6-0676 (0SU76-00126) (b) 06SU 23440-6-9038 (0SU76-00130) (c) 18SQ 23440-5-1 222-1-10 (0SQ76-00080) (d) 16SQ 23233-6-0976 (0SQ76-00079 (e) 02SU 23384-6-5116 (0SU76-00119) (0 18SQ 23440-5-1222-1-1 (0SQ76-00077) (g) 15SQ 23233-60553 (1SQ76-00081) (h) 15SQ 23233-6-0293 (0SQ76-00074) (i) 15SQ 23233-6-0540 (1SQ76-00083) (j) 16SQ 23440-6-9033 (0SQ76-00084) (k) 16SQ 23440-6-9034 (0SQ76-00085) (I) 15SQ 23294-6-0706 (0SQ76-00089) (m) 18SQ 23440-6-9043 (0SQ76-00091) (n) 18SQ 23440-6-9029 (0SQ76-00076) (o) 08SS KF501-6-0534 (0SS76-02106) (p) 08SS KF501-6-0525 (0SS76-02108) (q) 08SS KF501-6-0526 (0SS76-02107) (r) 08SS KF501-6-0527 (0SS76-02104) (s) 04SZ KL115-6-0125 (0SZ76-00245) (t) 05SS KE204-6-EP43 (0SS76-00242) (u) 07SS KE113-6-P-081 (0SS76-04014) (v) 06SS KL210-6-0856 (0SS76-00249) (w) 02SU KL004-6-C016 (0SU76-00115) (x) 04SS KL210-6-5147 (0SS76-00156) (y) 04SZ KF709-6-1163 (0SZ76-00198) (r) 01SU KL222-6-HY311 (0SU76-00127) (aa) 01SS KL347-6-0146 (0SS76-00207) (bb) 04SS KL347-6-0019 (0SS76-00257) (cc) 01SS KL210-6-0862 (0SS76-00241) (dd) 03SZ KL832-6-0860 (1SZ76-00240) (ee) 08SS KF501-6-0563 (0SS76-02111) (ff) 01SZ KM601-6-0525 (gg) 08SS KF501-6-0562 (0SS76-02110) (hh) 01SZ KM601-6-0579 (0SZ76-00263) (ii) 01SS KL347-6-0672 (0SS76-00256) (jj) 19SQ KL009-5-0181 (0SQ76-00068) (kk) 06SU KM601-6-0583 (0SU76-00135) (11) 01SS KL347-6-0671 (OSS76-00250) (mm) 01SS KE204-6-EP40 (0SS76-00262) (nn) 02SS KE204-6-EP20 (OSS76-00258) (oo) 01SS KL347-6-0728 (0SS76-00261) (pp) 01SS KE204-6-EP52 (0SS76-00265) (qq) 02SS KE204-6-EP58 (0SS76-00266) (rr) 02SS KE204-6-EP21 (0SS76-00260) (ss) 01SS KE109-6-6027 (0SS76-00211) (tt) 06SS KL009-6-0121 (0SS76-00252) (uu) 04SS KE105-6-0009 (0SS76-00251) (w) 07SS KF806-6-C040 (0SZ76-04015) (ww) 07SS KE113-6-P-097 (0SZ76-04019) (xx) 07SS KF706-6-0108 (0SZ76-04017) (yy) 07SS KF706-6-0121 (0SZ76-04018) (zz) 08SS KF832-6-0877 (0SS76-02115) (aaa) 08SS KE114-6-1162 (0SS76-02114) (bbb) 04SS KE 105-6-0010 (0SS76-00253) (ccc) 08SS KF710-6-030 (0SS76-O2113) (ddd) 08SS KF832-6-0886 (0SS76-02112) (eee) 02SS KE204-6-EP54 (0SS76-00267) (fff) 02SS KE204-6-EP28 (0SS76-O0272) (ggg) 06SS KE204-6-EP57 (0SS76-00271) (hhh) 03SZ KF830-5-0591 (1SZ5-0401) (iii) 05SS KL210-6-5037 (OSS76-00270) (jjj) 04SS KE109-6-6-54 (0SS76-00254) (kkk) 13ST 36001-6-2309 (0ST76-00044) (111) 07SU 36100-6-0349 (0SU76-00120) (mmm) 15ST 36001-6-7325 (0ST76-00043) (nnn) 13ST 36001-6-2315 (0ST76-00045) (ooo) 04SU 36100-6-0336 (0SU76-00112) (ppp) 16ST 36100-6-0351 (OST76-00048) (qqq) 13ST 36100-6-0289 (0ST76-00046) (rrr) 06SU 36001-6-7348 (0SU76-00131) (sss) 02SU 36100-6-0343 (0SU76-00136) (ttt) 13ST 36100-6-0386 (0ST76-0O049) (uuu) 07SU 36100-6-0256 (0SU76-00141) (wv) 02SU 36100-6-0393 (0SU76-00134) (www) 06SU 36100-6-0342 (0SU76-00146) (xxx) 13ST 36100-6-0387 (0ST76-00051) (yyy) 12ST 360001-6-2350 (0ST76-00054) (zzz) 17SR 31058-6-3142 (OSR76-00055) (aaaa) 05SZ 31051-6-4992 (OSZ76-00246) (bbbb) 11SQ 31040-6-0595-X (0SQ76-00088) (cccc) 11SQ 31040-6-0595-V (OSQ76-00087) (dddd) 11SQ 31040 (OSQ76-00002) (eeee) USQ 31040-6-0595-X1 (OSQ76-00093) (ffff) 11SQ 31040-6-0595-VII (0SQ76-00094) (gggg) 11SQ 31040-6-0595-III (0SQ76-00098) (hhhh) 17SR 31058-6-3143 (0SR76-00061) (iiii) 11SQ 31040-6-0595-VI (0SQ76-00095) (jjjj) 11SQ 31040-6-0595-XIII (0SQ76-
Order Paper Questions
00102) (kkkk) 11SQ 31040-6-0595-1 (0SQ76-0010-1) (1111) 11S0 31040-60595-1V (0SQ76-00100) (mmmm) 11SQ 31040-6-0595-II (OSQ76-00099) (nnnn) 02SW 01531-6-1173 (0SW76-00244) (oooo) SW03 01586-5-1634 (0SW5-0364) (pppp) 01SW 01525-6-0209 (0SW76-00259) (qqqq) 07SU 01A01-6-0876 (0SU76-0 0137) (rrrr) 01SW 01525-6-0186 (0SW76-00264) (ssss) 01SW 01525-6-0206 (0SW76-00268) (tttt) 01SW 01525-6-0223 (0SW76-00275) (uuuu) 14ST T8200-6-6 510 (OST76-00039) (ww) 14ST T8200-6-6526 (0ST76-00038) (wwww) 11ST T8200-5-5545 (0ST76-00042) (xxxx) 16ST T8080-6-1681 (0ST76-00047) (yyyy) 08SS T1900-6-0606 (0SS76-02109) (zzzz) 01SU T8200-6-6517 (0SU76-0 0133) (aaaaa) 16ST T8200-5-5528 (OST5-0087) (bbbbb) 15ST T8080-6-1749 (OST76-00050) (ccccc) 07SU T8200-6-6528 (0SU76-00144) (ddddd) 14ST T8200-6-6535 (0ST76-00052) (eeeee) 16ST T8080-6-1753 (0ST76-00053) (fffff) 16ST T8200-6-6503 (0ST76-00059) (ggggg) 13SR 3276026 (8SR76-00051) (hhhhh) 07SS 3216011 (0SS76-04013) (iiiii) 04SU CDO141608 (2SU76-00 124) (jjjjj) 13SR 1430603 (8SR76-00054) (kkkkk) 07SU CD0141607 (2 SU76-00132) (11111) 13SR 1450514 (8SR76-00059) (mmmmm) 07SS 2316016 (8SS76-04020) (nnnnn) 07SU CD3286004 (8SU76-00145) (ooooo) 02SU 3286001 (8SU76-00140) (ppppp) 13SR 3236019 (2SR76-00060) (qqqqq) 01SU 87055-6-0096 (0SU76-00142) (rrrrr) 11SQ 87055-5-0040-1 (0SQ76-00097) (sssss) 04SU 0S002-6-D453 (0SU76-00125) (ttttt) 04SU 38434-6-A096 (0SU76-00122) (uuuuu) 06SU 45045-6-3114 (1SU76-0 0129) (wwv) 04SU A7111-6-0306 (0SU76-00121) (wwwww) 04SU C7111-6-0300 (0SU76-00123) (xxxxx) 01SS 83877-60205 (0SS76-00248) (yyyyy) 06SUH4001-6-S003 (0SU76-00143)?
2. Has there been or will there be any follow up on such findings and/or recommendations and, if so, in what manner will they be implemented in each case?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: The list of contracts included in this question appears to have been taken from the DSS R&D Bulletin for October, 1976 which shows all unclassified contracts issued by the Science Centre during the month of September of the same year. All these contracts were issued by DSS on behalf of the science mission oriented departments of Government, the names of which are included in the Bulletin. In order to obtain detailed information relating to the purpose, Findings and any follow-up on such findings, it is suggested that it be requested from the departments which requisitioned the contracts. It should be noted that many of the contracts will not be completed until the end of the current fiscal year, or in some instances, until later in fiscal year 1977-78.


William Ross Milne: I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

February 18, 1977
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


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, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill now before the House encompasses a larger part of the over-all fiscal relationships between the federal government and the provinces for the next five-year period. It covers the long-standing program of equalization grants to the provinces, the income tax collection agreements with the provinces, and other aspects of our fiscal relations. It also includes new arrangements for the major shared-cost programs in the areas of public hospital services, medical care services and post-secondary education.
The present bill, encompassing as it does an agreement made ultimately between the first ministers at the meeting in mid-December last, is witness to several important facts about the constitutional system. First, it has been found to be possible, with the exercise of ingenuity and a considerable spirit of compromise in Canada, to bring about substantial changes in fiscal responsibilities and also in the area of government programs between the two levels of government without seeking formal amendment of the constitution.
The British North America Act in its original form contemplated just the same kind of transfer payment that we have in the bill before us today, but those provisions, such as for example sections 118 and 119 of the BN A Act, have long since been overcome by the fiscal facts of life. Right from the start of our constitution the concept of transfer payments to certain of the provinces was built into our constitutional framework, and this bill represents the latter-day evolution of those provisions.
The second fact witnessed by this measure is that over a period of time an important evolution has occurred in the relations between the federal government and the provinces, a relationship which has not been enshrined in any formal act of law either by the federal or provincial governments. I am talking, of course, of the evolution of the institution of federal-provincial conferences, many of which occur every year in the context of purely functional questions by the ministers involved but which increasingly involve meetings between the

first ministers of the 11 governments for the purpose of resolving major questions of policy which in some cases may have been discussed by ministers previously.
From the point of view of the provinces, the new fiscal arrangements provide for the transfer of a large part of national fiscal resources from the federal to the provincial governments. Pursuant to this measure, the provinces will be receiving some $8.5 billion in fiscal transfers, about $3 billion of it in the form of an increased share of personal income taxes and the rest in the form of cash payments. This contribution represents more than a sixth of the total federal budget. From the point of view of the ordinary citizen, the measures we are discussing constitute vital services we have come to depend on and perhaps even take for granted as Canadians. We are fortunate to have established in Canada publicly-supported programs for hospital and medical care which assure all citizens high-quality health services regardless of their ability to pay.
I am conscious, in introducing this measure to the House in the first place, of the fact that the bill is a very complex document. I regret that this is the case, but unfortunately it is unavoidable. Fiscal relationships between different levels of government are inherently complicated. Hon. members will be dismayed to see algebraeic formulae and cube roots worked into the clauses of the bill. The concepts they deal with are technically complex, but they have to be incorporated into legislation. The legal phraseology has to be as accurate and precise as we can make it. We are dealing with such notions as the measurement of fiscal capacity, methods of calculating cash entitlements, escalation factors and tax rate changes. These are essential features of the new fiscal relations we are proposing, and there is no alternative to writing them into the law.
I would have to say in this regard, however-if we can take at least one consolation from this-that happily this is not a measure which in the normal course of life will have to be interpreted by the ordinary taxpayer. Rather, it reflects the highly esoteric responsibilities of that rare but hardly endangered species, the treasury tax planner. As the House knows, that is a species which survives at a particular altitude in our community, living in communion with the binomial theorem, tending carefully square and cube roots, and comprehensible only to the other groups of similar planners.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Because of the complexity of the bill I would like to take a little time to speak of its detailed provisions, and I apologize for taking more time than I would normally on a measure on second reading. I wish to do so in order to put before the House, and for the record, an overview of the document before us and some indication of the ways in which the various fiscal arrangements have changed as a result of the discussions culminating in the meeting last December 13.
As I said before, this package of fiscal measures represents the culmination of intensive federal-provincial discussion and
February 18, 1977

debate over the past year and a half. It implements the accord reached between the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his provincial colleagues at their conference last December. There were, and are, some differences between the federal government and the provinces. Indeed, there were, and are, some differences among the provinces themselves. This is hardly surprising. Canada is a country not only with divided jurisdiction but with marked regional differences.


Donald W. Munro: I wish I had said that.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would like to emphasize that as a result of these particular discussions in so far as transfer payments have been involved in these measures to which the ministers and the premiers concurred and make a special comment on the fact that, particularly in relation to premiers from the so-called well-to-do provinces, not only had the transfer payments not been a subject matter of complaint but, indeed, the proposals have received very generous support. I would have to say in this regard, also, that this has been just another example of the self-reinforcing nature of Canadian federalism and of the responsibilities assumed by certain regions of the country for the welfare and development of other regions. The arrangements arrived at in mid-December are in the very best of traditions which have been involved in the evolution of our federalism.
Much of the discussion and debate over the past year and a half stemmed from obvious differences in perspective. We at the federal level believe that the national government must preserve enough fiscal resources to redistribute income to persons and regions, to stabilize the economy and to continue to help finance the services Canadians in all parts of the country need and deserve. Those at the provincial level have claimed that the federal government has in the past intruded into areas of provincial jurisdiction through the use of its spending power; that the shared-cost programs in particular have distorted provincial expenditure priorities; and that this, in turn, has forced the provinces to provide high-cost programs where equally effective but lower-cost alternatives would serve as well.
Reflecting only a personal viewpoint as a member who was in the House through the decade of the sixties when a number of these significant measures came to their realization, I for one remain unrepentant about the use of the federal spending power for the purpose of providing these better services to Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would think there could hardly be any question that without the exercise of the spending piower in the areas of health or post-secondary education we could not have had the good national standards in all provinces in the fields of health and education which have been supported in all corners of the House.


John Edward Broadbent: Why are you getting out of it all?
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Because the provinces have asked to be given increasing fiscal room. They have asked that they be given increasing possibility to determine their own priorities in this regard. The financial room is still there, but the greater freedom of decision-making power is also being conferred upon the provinces by the measures that we are putting forward here. I believe that the bill before us represents a remarkable accommodation of the varying interests that were represented at that conference.
Many of the ideas that are incorporated into this bill, such as, for example, those regarding the treatment of shared-cost programs, are not new. They represent the long-standing policy of the federal government, particularly of this administration, to seek effective decentralization of fiscal responsibility to the provinces. I might recall that similar initiatives were taken by the federal government about five years ago. This government has been in the forefront of this search for decentralization for many years.
If there is one striking fact about the evolution of the fiscal relationships between the federal government and the provinces during the past ten or twenty years, it is the increasing degree of fiscal freedom and flexibility which the provinces have achieved. They not only control a much larger share of total government revenues and expenditures than they did ten or twenty years ago, but they have developed a wide array of distinctive and effective programs increasingly under their own control.
The federal government has listened, and responded, to provincial demands for greater autonomy. There has inevitably been some tension between the two levels of government over the proper balance between the centralizing and decentralizing forces which are experienced in any federal state. The bill now before the House will, I believe, contribute significantly to striking an even better balance between these forces at this time in our development. I say "at this time" because there is no right or wrong answer for all time. As social, economic and political conditions change, different fiscal relationships between the federal government and the provinces become appropriate. The present bill is a response to those changing conditions. It represents a major step toward decentralization, especially in the areas of health and post-secondary education.
The cost-sharing formulae for these programs will be replaced by an arrangement under which federal contributions will no longer be tied dollar for dollar to provincial expenditures. Moreover, federal contributions will be in the form of cash payments and the handing over of more income tax room to the provinces. The cash portion will help to maintain national standards and objectives, where appropriate, without detailed auditing of provincial accounts. The greater provincial share of the tax will increase provincial fiscal flexibility. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, in addition to its brilliant innovations with respect to health and post-secondary education programs, this bill will maintain the financial stability of the provinces

February 18, 1977
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements through the equalization payment program. This program assures all Canadians of a reasonable level of vital public services, without forcing them to pay much higher tax rates than the national average. It attempts to reduce as much as possible regional disparities throughout the country and it will continue to do so as an efficient means of preserving national unity. Financial stability will also be maintained through methodical arrangements concerning the sharing of fiscal areas, the revenue stabilization program, and the guaranteed personal income tax revenues.
Before considering certain provisions of the bill, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that in spite of the understandable differences of opinion that exist between the various provinces as well as between the provinces and the federal government, the fact remains that the parties can come together to work with a view to improving the lot of all Canadians. Recently, some seemed to doubt that possibility. The result of the November 15 election particularly brought some to believe that Canadians could no longer live and co-operate as Canadians.
The election of a separatist government in Quebec led to two opposed reactions within English-speaking Canada; I do not approve either one of them. The first had overtones of hostility, and the second was marked by indifference. Those attitudes are both shallow and baffling, shallow because they represent opinions that no intelligent being would want to defend after thinking about it, and baffling because they reflect a profound lack of understanding of the legitimate aspirations of many French Canadians. Not only hostility incompatible with the democratic process of this country but it also serves the interests of certain extremist elements in Quebec. Likewise, indifference to the election of the separatist government shows that people do not know where the interest of Canadians lies.
The separation of Quebec will not miraculously solve the problems that gave rise to the separatist movement. The problems will persist and might become unsolvable. The means to solve those problems and put an end to the differences that exist between French and English Canadians are already present in our federation. This bill is an excellent example of the means made available to us and the agreements that can be made between various levels of government.
I also noted that the bill gives the provinces greater freedom and flexibility in taxation. However, it should not be forgotten that freedom, flexibility and responsibility go together. Through the years, the provinces have asked for a large part of the taxation resources to be able to finance the programs for which they are responsible and that they want to adjust to the objectives of their own policies. The new arrangements concerning the financing of shared cost programs allow for a large part to meet that request. However, it means that the provinces will have to accept more and more responsibility for their action and the control of their spending. Indeed they are more in a position to do so. So they will be more accountable to their own voters. That is the very principle of fiscal responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to call it one o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, if I could turn from my general introduction to the basic provisions of the bill, I think it might be simplest for me to deal with each of the ten parts in turn. Part I of the bill provides for a new equalization formula which is to be applicable for a period of five years commencing April 1, 1977. It will replace the present one which expires on March 1, 1977. The purpose of equalization remains unchanged; that is to say, to make it possible for all provinces to enjoy reasonable standards of basic public services without having to resort to levels of taxation above the national average. Equalization remains among the most important of all federal programs, and the fact that the programs have become well established should not let anyone forget its very great significance.
Hon. members will recall that seven provinces presently receive equalization payments: the four Atlantic provinces, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. These are the provinces whose capacity to raise revenues from their own sources is below the national average. The concept of fiscal capacity is a simple one but one that poses great technical problems. How it is dealt with is set out in the bill.
It is estimated that equalization payments of about $2.5 billion will be made to the provinces in the fiscal year 1977-78. In per capita terms, that will be distributed as follows; Newfoundland, $479; Prince Edward Island, $577; Nova Scotia, $416; New Brunswick, $394; Quebec, $200; Manitoba, $194; Saskatchewan, $41. These figures reflect the relative fiscal capacity of the provinces to raise revenues from their own sources. Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia do not receive equalization payments because their fiscal capacity is above the national average.
The new equalization formula proposed in the bill differs from the one presently in effect in essentially four ways. First, revenues to be equalized have been reclassified and redefined to reflect in a better way what the provinces are now taxing. In effect, the representative tax system upon which the program is based has been updated. Among other things, this enables the equalization formula to give separate recognition to certain revenues which have become increasingly important in recent years.
Second, the treatment of national resource revenues has been changed. Commencing with 1974-75, provincial revenues from natural resources have been only partly included in equalization in order to avoid a sudden and unwarranted large jump in the cost to Canadian taxpayers of the equalization program. It is proposed to continue to limit the resource
February 18, 1977

revenues subject to equalization, but to do so in a more consistent way.
At the present time, revenues from non-renewable resources, except for oil and gas, are equalized in full particularly because revenues are split into two parts, basic and additional. Basic revenues, essentially revenues up to 1973-74 levels, are equalized in full: additional revenues essentially representing the increase in revenues beyond the 1973-74 levels which were consequent upon the increase in world prices for petroleum and which, while not rising to world levels, increase as well, and are equalized to the extent of one-third. The new formula provides that half of all revenues from non-renewable resources would be equalized. All provincial revenues from renewable resources would continue to be equalized in full as they presently are.
Third, changes have been built into the formula to reduce existing possibilities for a province to influence its equalization entitlements by its own actions. In particular, a new revenue source, covering both corporate income taxes and the revenues derived from government business enterprises, has been established. The objective of this new grouping is to prevent a province's equalization entitlement from being significantly increased as a result of the province acquiring a privately-owned, profit-making corporation.
Finally, a partial ceiling has been built into the equalization formula for all natural resource revenues. This has been done to guard against a rapid increase in the costs of the equalization program resulting from such events as worldwide shortages or restrictions of supply that can affect resource revenues particularly. The way it has been done is by providing that the total amount of equalization payable in respect of all natural resource revenues may not exceed one-third of total equalization. The level of one-third is somewhat above the existing level and is unlikely to become applicable unless there is a very substantial increase in provincial revenues from oil and gas.
One Final point on the equalization program, Mr. Speaker. I referred earlier to the importance of equalization in underpinning provincial Financing. This can be illustrated by noting that payments under this single program regularly amount to about 25 per cent of gross general revenues in each of the four Atlantic provinces to more than 10 per cent in the case of Quebec and Manitoba and, on the average, to about 5 per cent in Saskatchewan. It is not possible to overestimate the impact that the equalization program has in the lower income provinces.
Part II of the bill provides for renewal of the Fiscal stabilization program for a period of Five years commencing April 1, 1977. It will replace the present one which expires on March 31, 1977. The purpose of revenue stabilization is to protect provinces from sudden year to year losses in revenue as a result of a severe economic downturn in the national economy or in their own economies. In essence, the program provides that where the total revenue of a province in any year is lower than its total revenue in the preceding year, it will receive a
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements stabilization payment equal to the shortfall. The comparison between the two years is made on the basis of common tax rates and structures. However, where the reduction occurs in respect of natural resource revenues, stabilization is applicable only if and to the extent that the reduction exceeds 50 per cent of such revenues for the previous year.
This latter provision-the 50 per cent threshold-has been added to prevent the possibility of making substantial stabilization payments to resource-rich provinces whose revenues could fall from present, or future, high levels as a result of declining volumes of production or reductions in the prices of resources. We do not feel we should ask the taxpayers of Canada generally to underwrite resource revenues, given their historic tendency to reach peaks from which sharp declines occur. The rapid increases in such revenues are, for the most part, unexpected; their subsequent declines are often foreseeable. They should be planned for by the provinces which are fortunate enough to receive them. This is not the kind of contingency that the stabilization program is intended to cover. While no payments have ever been made under the stabilization program, it has proved useful to the provinces when they have gone to the capital markets to raise funds.
Part III of the bill provides for continuation of the authority in the present act for the federal government to enter into tax collection agreements with the provinces. The only signiFicant change here is that for the First time provision is made for bringing the two territories within the tax collection agreements. Under these arrangements the federal government collects, on behalf of all provinces except Quebec, the provincial personal income taxes they levy. It also collects, on behalf of all provinces except Ontario and Quebec, the corporation income taxes they impose, and it does so at no cost to the provinces except for a small fee, in the case of some provinces, for the administration of special rebates. This tax collection system has been used as the main tool to keep federal and provincial tax systems in harmony. The two provinces not party to the agreements have shown a willingness to keep their systems similar to the federal system, thus preserving harmony.
When the agreements were first initiated, income taxes levied by agreeing provinces were required to conform rather strictly to the federal tax law. In recent years, provinces have sought modification to their tax laws to permit them to implement their own social and economic policies. They requested that these modifications-tax credits, tax reductions, etc.-be accommodated within the terms of the tax collection agreements. These requests have been met where it was felt that departure from strict conformity with the federal law would not disturb or damage the national system. This is a clear demonstration of federal willingness to grant provinces the flexibility they want to determine their own Fiscal policies. Obviously, the accommodation cannot go so far as to undermine the very objectives of a uniform tax system. But I think it is fair to say that no reasonable provincial request has been turned down.

February 18, 1977
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
Part IV of the bill provides for a new, limited revenue guarantee program intended to avoid serious disruption to provincial financial planning as a result of federal tax policy changes in the year in which they are effective. Its purpose is to encourage the maintenance of a common tax system across Canada. Provincial personal income tax rates under the tax collection agreements are applied to federal basic tax. As a result, any policy change that reduces federal basic tax, after provincial rates are struck, alters provincial tax collections. The guarantee will pay for any such provincial revenue losses, as a result of federal policy, that exceed 1 per cent of federal basic tax in the province. The 1 per cent threshold is designed to avoid the necessity of making payments for what might be regarded as relatively small and unimportant changes. The guarantee will apply to all personal income tax changes announced after the beginning of the tax year and effective in that year. The change in revenues will be estimated by province, and where the potential loss exceeds 1 per cent of federal basic tax a payment will be made.
The province of Quebec both defines its own income tax law and collects its own income tax. Thus, it is not automatically affected like the other provinces. However, Quebec has indicated its interest in making its tax system conform with the national system and has asked to be included in the program. If Quebec makes changes in its tax system similar to the federal changes and in the same year, it will be eligible for a guarantee payment.
Part V of the bill authorizes the federal government to share with the provinces 20 per cent of the yield of a special federal tax of 15 per cent on the pay-out by corporations of undistributed surplus on hand at the end of their 1971 taxation year. The provisions of this part of the bill are simply a continuation of the arrangements provided for under the existing act.
I come now, Mr. Speaker, to part VI of the bill, the new provisions for the financing of established shared-cost programs. In essence, the present cost-sharing arrangements for hospital insurance, medicare and post-secondary education are replaced by a formula under which federal contributions will no longer be tied to provincial expenditures. The objectives of the new arrangements were outlined by the Prime Minister last June. They are: first, to maintain across Canada the standards of service to the public under these major programs and to facilitate their improvement; second, to put the programs on a more stable footing so that both levels of government are better able to plan their expenditures; third, to give the provinces flexibility in the use of their own funds which they have been spending in these fields; fourth, to bring about greater equality among the provinces with regard to the amount of federal funds they receive under the programs; and, fifth, to provide for continuing joint policy discussions relating to the health and post-secondary education fields.
The new established programs financing arrangements as defined in part VI of this bill will serve to help achieve each of these goals. The need for the detailed accounting required i under the cost-sharing formulae for hospital insurance, medi-

care and post-secondary education will be eliminated. This detailed accounting has been a source of irritation and resentment between the two levels of government for some time. The federal contributions to the provinces will now take the form of cash payments and the transfer of tax room to the provinces. Federal contributions to the provinces under this part of the bill will come to more than $6 billion in the next fiscal year. These contributions, in conjunction with the equalization payments, will total almost 21 per cent of provincial gross general revenues, ranging from about 10 per cent in Alberta, a nonequalization receiving province, to well over 35 per cent in each of the four Atlantic provinces.
The basic cash contribution for established programs financing for 1977-78 will equal 50 per cent of the national average per capita contribution for all three programs in the base year 1975-76, multiplied by the population in each province and escalated in line with the growth of the Canadian economy since that year. The tax transfer will consist of 13.5 personal and one corporate income tax points, plus associated equalization. Since the provinces already have 4.357 personal and one corporate income tax points for post-secondary education under part VI of the present act, the increased tax transfer to the provinces will be 9.143 personal income tax points.
It would be helpful if I could take a moment to explain the concept of a tax transfer. The way this will come about will be through a reduction of federal tax in the expectation that the provinces will increase their taxes by an equivalent amount. The result is that the position of the taxpayer will be unchanged but he will pay less tax to the federal government and more to the provincial government. The tax transfer will give the provinces greater flexibility in the use of their financial resources, and thus promote the principle of Fiscal responsibility. This is in accord with the wishes of provinces. It will also enable both levels of government to better plan their expenditures. The tax cut will be effective as of January 1 of this year, 1977.
The value of the tax transfer varies widely among the provinces. In the interest of achieving greater equality of treatment among the provinces, transitional adjustment payments will be made to ensure that the value of the tax transfer is at least equivalent to the value of the basic cash contribution. In this way provinces will receive as much in tax revenues and cash as they would receive if the entire federal contribution were in the form of cash. I should also note that the current shared-cost payments also vary widely from province to province on a per capita basis. Accordingly, levelling adjustments will be made in order to achieve further equality of provincial treatment. These levelling adjustments will assure all provinces equal per capita payments after five years. Provinces now above the national average will be "levelled down" in five years; those now below will be "levelled up" in three years.
There are two other issues I should mention in connection with established programs financing. The first relates to the
February 18, 1977

recovery of a portion of the tax transfer, and the second relates to the extended health care services proposal made to the provinces by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde). The need to make a recovery arises because while the tax transfer will become effective on January 1, the established programs financing arrangements will not come into effect until April 1. At the last federal-provincial finance ministers meeting I proposed that this "overcompensation" be recovered from the provinces by means of a reduction of amounts otherwise payable over the next three fiscal years. The provinces argued that this would be unfair since there is a delay between collections by the federal government and payments to the provinces. The bill provides for a compromise solution by specifying that only one-half of the "overcompensation" in the first three months will be recovered by means of a reduction in amounts otherwise payable. This recovery will be made over the following two years. I feel that this compromise is more than fair.
The second issue has to do with the proposal of the Minister of National Health and Welfare to finance certain new health programs, as well as certain services now cost-shared under the Canada Assistance Plan, by means of an equal per capita cash grant of $20. These services are referred to as the extended health care program. The Minister of National Health and Welfare has informed me that the provinces generally agree with this proposal, and I understand he is communicating today with provincial health ministers to confirm that we are proceeding with it. This program which is provided for in the bill has the advantages of terminating all open-ended costsharing arrangements in the health care field and of making it easier for the provinces to provide less costly but equally effective services across the whole spectrum of our exemplary health care system.

Mr. Speaker, the arrangements concerning established programs financing are an important step in the evolution and the decentralization of federal-provincial fiscal interdependencies in Canada. These arrangements will enable the provinces to enjoy greater autonomy in administering their own programs and will eliminate a source of tension and deception among the federal and provincial governments. According to the federal government, decisions concerning federal budget related expenditures will no longer be made in provincial capitals and both levels of government will be better able to plan their own business. The provinces will have greater control over their programs and will have to accept greater responsibility for the control of their costs.
Mr. Speaker, I should note here that the bill provides that any amendment proposed to Part VI of the new act, which will effectively reduce the right of a province, can be implemented only after a three year notice, unless of course the province involved accepts the amendment. Moreover, it provides that no notice will be given for at least two years. This provision ensures the provinces of stable and long term financing.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to speak about Part VII of the bill, which replaces the Established Programs (Interim
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Arrangements) Act. This act, which was passed in 1965, provided for the special arrangements with Quebec and allowed opting out of certain programs. In the mid-sixties, the federal government suggested to the provinces that they agree to finance certain cost-shared programs in exchange for federal tax abatements. Quebec was the only province to take advantage of the federal government offer. At the present time, Quebec receives a special abatement of 24 personal income tax points, including three for youth allowances, five for the special welfare program and 16 for hospital insurance.


John Edward Broadbent: Is that special status?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is familiar with the arrangements. He, of course, was not in the House at the time that was put through. I cannot recall whether his colleagues, under the leadership of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), supported that or not. I rather expect they did at that time.


John Edward Broadbent: Now would you answer the question?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the hon. member is for, or against, it. If he is advocating that we should make a change in these arrangements, perhaps we will hear from him in his speech to that effect.

As I have noted, Quebec was the only province to take advantage of the federal government offer.
The amount of revenues apportioned to Quebec is used to reduce the cash payments that the federal government should otherwise pay to the province. By reducing the equalization payments we get back from Quebec the three point value of the youth allowance program. The five point value allocated to the welfare program, which includes the Canada Assistance Plan, and the 16 point value under programs for hospital care is used to neutralize the transfers which would otherwise be required for these programs. Quebec does not enjoy more or fewer advantages than the other provinces with these fiscal arrangements. The only difference lies in the way the federal government makes its contribution.
These new fiscal arrangements will allow us to reduce the special reduction to take into account a reduction in federal taxation of 9.143 per cent. Therefore, the special reduction of 24 points for Quebec taxpayers will be reduced by 9.143 and will be fixed at 14.857. The situation will remain the same before and after the reduction in federal taxation. The remaining 14.857 points, amounting to 16.5 per cent of the new reduced basis and the present 24 points of the reduction will be reduced to 16.5 points. Out of the 16.5 points, 3 will be allocated to the youth programs, 5 to the special social welfare program and the 8.5 remaining points will be allocated to established programs. The final balance of the financial situation of the government of Quebec will remain therefore the same compared with that of other provinces.

February 18, 1977
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
[DOT] (M30)

Part VIII of the bill authorizes the federal government to enter into reciprocal taxation agreements with the provinces effective October 1 this year. These agreements will provide for the two levels of government to pay each other's consumption taxes. The reason for such agreements is to remove a lot of the uncertainty and dispute that has surrounded the paying of such taxes by government bodies in the past. To date, six provinces have agreed to enter into a system of reciprocal taxation with the federal government respecting consumption taxes. The six provinces are Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland.
Part IX provides for the necessary authority to make regulations pursuant to the act and for the recovery I referred to a few minutes ago.
Part X contains the consequential amendments to other legislation. It provides for the reduction in federal income tax rates to which I alluded earlier as part of the established program financing arrangements. I should note that certain adjustments relating to the dividend tax credit and to the income tax surcharge in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories will have to be made as a consequence of the new arrangements. These adjustments are not provided for in this bill but will be dealt with later in the session.
To the intense relief of hon. members and, might I add, of myself, that ends my review of the main provisions of the bill. I see in them a reflection of the accord reached between the federal government and the provinces following extensive discussions during the past year and a half. This is not simple legislation. Nor can it be simple if it is to serve its purposes in a country so large and varied in needs, resources and political outlook. It is complex legislation because it is highly sensitive to this great diversity in our confederation. Above all, it reflects the ability of our federal system to accommodate our regional differences in a manner that enhances the strength and well-being of the entire federation. Our federal system is a dynamic one and it can respond to changing circumstances. Perhaps this is so because there is a basic generosity and understanding that underlies our mutual accommodations. These are qualities of which Canadians can be proud. Moreover, they can become the crucial elements in meeting the threat of Quebec's independence and other expressions of dissatisfaction and discontent in other parts of Canada. We do have the instruments to meet these challenges. In its essential purposes, this bill is one of them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by expressing, on behalf of my colleagues, our congratulations to the minister for his stamina in reading that long review, a stamina exceeded only by our own. We sympathize with him for having to go through the details of a very complex bill. The minister spoke earlier of the complexity of the legislation. I think it is fair for me to say that this complexity is understandable. We do not take exception to

that as much as to the fact that what we are faced with here is a fait accompli, an agreement arrived at by heads of government meeting away from here without allowing parliament so much as an expression of opinion with regard to the options.
The minister referred, as I say, to the complexity of the bill. Our spokesman on federal-provincial relations, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), will be referring later in the debate to some of the details of the legislation. Given all the mathematical equations and the nicety of the legal language, she has threatened to reply in Gaelic to match the complexity of the text. If she does show that initiative, she will earn a badge!
I want to speak more generally at this time about the nature of the country which these arrangements are designed to serve and about actions which we as a parliament might undertake to ensure the integrity of a confederation which is now under attack. As I have mentioned, the detailed response to the bill will be provided by my hon. friend. We are, of course, supporting in principle the legislation which is before us. In effect, we have no alternative even if we found there was cause for serious disagreement since, as I have pointed out, while this bill is being debated in parliament, it was decided outside parliament, and that is a system which must end-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: -not least because, as my hon. friend from Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) has stated, the process of debasing and demeaning our national institutions by taking power away from them is one of the causes of the decline in the sense of national spirit and national identity.
I want to begin by expressing my view that, while the challenges which face the country today are serious, there is no question at all that we as Canadians can hold this country together.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Indeed, there is no question that the present central crisis may be one of the most important elements in helping us not just to stay together but to build together as a country. Nations are like people. They need challenge. It brings out the best in them. It forces them to stop engaging in petty disputes, to stop fooling around. We have been ignoring reality for too long, lately, in this country. The November 15 election in Quebec forced us to face reality. We learned dramatically that separatism is not dead. But the lesson of deep discontent with existing national arrangements was there to see, for anyone who was looking, well before November 15. It might prove to be one of the ironies of our era that the election of a party dedicated to the partition of our country was the catalyst which forced us to adopt reforms which could bring this country together.
The bill before us, dealing as it does with arrangements to maintain confederation by helping it to function, provides a good occasion for us in the House of Commons to face the elements of the Canadian reality in 1977. The obvious chal-
February 18, 1977

lenge exists in the province of Quebec where a significant number of French-speaking Canadians believe their culture and community are not sufficiently protected in the present Canadian context. A minority among them is committed to an independent state. A great many others share a concern for the culture but are aot persuaded to independence-at least not yet. We in the parliament of Canada, in the public life of Canada, must demonstrate that reforms in the Canadian federal system cannot only encourage that culture but protect it better than in a smaller, more insular, more exposed state.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: For our part in this party, Mr. Speaker, we would be prepared as a government to proceed seriously with reforms which would encourage and protect the French culture in Canada through language law, a more flexible communication policy and other administrative jurisdictional changes that frank discussion demonstrates are necessary. But, sir, the second challenge for us all is to recognize that the strains on Canadian unity are not confined to culture; nor are they confined to Quebec. When people cannot find secure work in a rich country like Canada, they are more likely to' ask if the system itself works. As I indicated in the House the other day, our failure as a country, and the failure of this government to generate economic growth, feeds two kinds of frustration both of which corrode confidence in the Canadian system. One is the frustration of the disadvantaged when unemployment is high and prospects are few. The other is the frustration of the entrepreneur, most evident in western Canada, where there is a sense that the Canadian system is stacked against that region's instinct to build and to grow.
I want to speak for a moment about western Canada and what is happening there. In geographic terms, while there is no significant cultural concern in western Canada similar to that developing in Quebec, there is a growing sense of grievance in the west which is particularly menacing because that region's sense of connection with this country has always been less secure than in the older parts of Canada. It is tempting to dismiss western anger as being selfish or unjustified, just as once it was tempting to dismiss the early Quebec separatists as eccentric. But it is, in fact, quite justified for the west and for Atlantic and northern Canada to note that national policy, from the construction of seaways through to most transportation and tariff policy, has encouraged growth to concentrate in Canada rather than to disperse in Canada. One of the facts of life in Canada, one of the positive facts, is that we must continually demonstrate the worth of this nation to its parts, and that challenge is alive again today in most parts of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: That, sir, is in the nature of a federal state and it is important for us to remember it as we consider some of the practical, political arrangements of our system. Politicians sometimes talk of constitutions and relations between govern-
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements ments as though they had some kind of compelling magic of their own. Yet my colleague for Kingston and the Islands posed a good question in Toronto the other day when she asked, "What Canadian explains his feeling for his country in terms of the British North America Act?"


An hon. Member:: John Diefenbaker.


Charles Joseph Clark: The hon. member knows that when the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) expresses his feeling for his country, as he does so eloquently and so effectively, he does it on a much wider range of questions and with a much deeper sense of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The fact is that the arrangements in this bill, important as they are, are not the essence of this country. They are not even the furniture of this country; they are just the plumbing. The plumbing is important; it lets the country work and keeps it comfortable. There are some statutes which express the aspirations and the standards of this country. There was reference to the right hon. member for Prince Albert. Clearly, one of the statutes which does that is the Bill of Rights which was introduced in his day. Some day, sir, aspects of our constitutional documents may attain that status.
It is important to keep some perspective on most of these arrangements. They are simply arrangements. It is not fundamentally important to Canada what level of government controls, for example, cable television in the country, so long as the system works. What has been going wrong in Canada recently, and what has been contributing to the sense of strain in the nation, is that the federal government, this government, has been so preoccupied with the plumbing that it appears to have forgotten the spirit which makes this system work. The challenge particularly for this government now-because it is in office and has been in office through a decade of rigidity- is to change its rigid approach to its relations with the other partners in confederation. It may be that that has begun. None of us knows quite what to make of the speech of absolute reversal of position made by the Prime Minister in Quebec City, outside this House, two or three weeks ago, but I think it is fair to say that we will need more than a speech and a unity secretariat to demonstrate that there has been a fundamental change in the approach of this government to its relations with its partners.
I think it important to trace the two fundamental mistakes which this government made when dealing with the provinces during its tenure of office. The first was, in effect, to ignore the reasons for the federal nature of the country, to ignore the fact that only a federal system can respond to our diversity as reflected in the consistent attempt to impose Ottawa programs uniformly even where they did not fit. The second was always to treat the provinces as adversaries. We had another instance of that today, as recently as the question period, when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), I suppose doing the best he could with the brief he carried, was actually suggesting
3208

February 18, 1977
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
that the onus for acting on a federal Liberal campaign promise rested with the provinces.
No one would suggest that we can have a federal system without tensions, without differences between the central government and the provinces. Such tensions and differences have always existed, and they always will. They are part of the essence of federalism, part of the essential nature of our country. The issue is whether they are creative tensions and genuine differences, or whether too often they are destructive and contrived-whether they flow from the challenge of federalism, the challenge of our country, or whether they reflect an excessive rigidity by one of the partners or a deliberate attempt to pick a fight for perceived political advantage.
In my view, sir, we have had far too much of the latter in recent years. If you take a look at the previous governments under previous prime ministers-that of the right hon. member for Prince Albert, that of the late Mr. Pearson-we can find that there were tensions and differences between the partners in confederation. But there was an overriding spirit of co-operation and conciliation. There was no attempt to divide and conquer, no attempt to stage a confrontation. There was a genuine willingness to seek to accommodate national goals and national needs with regional aspirations. There was, in short, an honest effort to promote and sustain co-operative federalism.
One could cite many examples. Under the government of my colleague from Prince Albert the roads to resources program was adjusted from its original form to include tourism development to make it more relevant and more useful to the maritime provinces. Under his government, thanks largely to the initiative of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) and the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), the Canadian Council of Resource Ministers was created, not to bicker over jurisdictional points but to draw together the governments concerned to promote the fullest possible mutual understanding and co-ordination in an area of shared jurisdiction.
Probably the best known case of co-operative federalism under Mr. Pearson's government was the effort made to accommodate Quebec's particular needs and desires in the area of contributory pensions. But one should only mention the adaptations made to the Trans-Canada Highway program to better suit it to the special needs of certain regions of the country. I wish that I could find the same kind of spirit, the same kind of example, in the record of this government. Unfortunately, the examples that come most readily to mind, examples in certain areas such as energy policy, resource taxation and the phony conference on economic opportunities held in western Canada, bespeak not conciliation and co-operation but confrontation and a kind of unilateralism which is bound to breed distrust and feed a sense of regional grievance against the centre of the country.
We need to restore a sense of partnership to the relations between the governments in Canada and the sense of partner-
[Mr. Clark.)
ship among the individual citizens of the different regions of Canada, and to do that clearly we must be prepared to modernize our federal system to ensure that it better reflects and better respects the regional realities of Canada.
In terms of constitutional change, there is a clear place for us to start now. The premiers of all the provinces have indicated the questions where they think discussion is most urgent. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in his celebrated reversal in Quebec City, indicated that he is prepared to start with a clean slate. I leave it to him as the leader of the government to take the action that he should take. I simply say that if the responsibility for government were ours today, we would sit down with the premiers and discuss seriously the priority areas they identify, including references to language rights. When that responsibility is ours, we will begin by seeking the views of the members of the thirty-first parliament as to the kind of constitution which would best serve modern Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We would encourage the premiers to similarly consult their legislatures, and then we would meet the other heads of government in an open atmosphere and in the spirit of seeking agreement, first on goals and then on jurisdictions. Much can be accomplished without formal constitutional change. We have-and I have referred to some of them- examples of creative federalism in the years of the Diefen-baker government. I mentioned the Canadian Council of Resource Ministers, the ARDA program and several other initiatives. I think it is very important for us to begin again, in areas where jurisdiction is shared, to bring governments together to agree on goals, not simply to fight about jurisdiction but to emphasize the areas where we can co-operate rather than insisting on the areas where we have to disagree.
Again, we would be interested in pursuing, with the provinces, the development of mechanisms which would ensure that when one level of government acts within an area of its exclusive jurisdiction there was some means to ensure consideration of the impact of that action on other levels of government, even if they did not have a formal right to become involved under the constitution. Clearly, if the actions of one level have an impact upon another level of government, there must be some means for the affected level to be consulted before the fact.
In that same spirit we think it essential to ensure that national institutions, including the other place, the Senate, are in a better position to fulfil their functions as representatives of the whole nation. I have spoken before about my willingness to sit down with heads of other governments in the country, with the premiers of the provinces and others who are concerned, to discuss means by which we might ensure that the other place, the other part of this parliament, is better able to carry out its original founding function of representing regions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
February 18, 1977


Charles Joseph Clark: We would also-I reiterate this point because it should be a matter of offence to all of us in the House today- restore the capacity of the parliament of all the people of Canada to have some influence upon matters of such major national importance as the legislation before us today. Today, more important decisions on the future of Canada are made in the conference centre across the street than are made here in the House of Commons. That defies not only the principles of democratic government but also isolates the process of decision-making from the diverse and legitimate opinions which exist in the House. One of the means to restore respect for national institutions is to give these institutions meaningful work to do. I have indicated on other occasions the wide-ranging reforms we intend to bring to parliament to restore its capacity to contribute to national business and, when necessary, to restore its capacity to control the governments, a capacity which it no longer enjoys.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: One of those reforms will be to ensure that there is an opportunity for this parliament to discuss the options open to heads of government before they secrete themselves away at a private dinner to decide the nation's future. Our federal parliamentary system was not developed by accident or simply by a blind importation from elsewhere. We are a diverse country and we need institutions which both reflect and accommodate that diversity. The best institution for that purpose has been parliament, because it draws its membership from every corner of the country and has traditionally encouraged its members to express the views of their locale.
But parliament was never designed to be simply a talking shop: the assumption was that the Prime Minister and the cabinet who came from parliament would heed the views of the various locales. If they did not, in theory parliament would bring them down. But parliament, the forum of diversity, has lost this control over the executive, and the Prime Minister is increasingly able to construct a government which reflects his own views better than it reflects the diversity of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: If that double-trend continues-the weakening of the forum of diversity and the empowering of a particular group-those regions and attitudes which lack power will naturally tire of the system and seek some other options. In effect, most of the federalist concern since the Quebec election has focused on the question: Can a Quebecer be a Canadian?
We can ask the question, as well, of residents of any other region-and it is important for us here in this assembly to remember that that question is not new. There are wise words from Professor Northrop Frye in his preface to his book "The Bush Garden, Essays on the Canadian Imagination", in which he writes:
It is not always realized that unity and identity are quite different things to be promoting, and that in Canada they are perhaps more different than they are anywhere else. Identity is local are regional, rooted in the imagination and in works of culture; unity is national in reference, international in perspective, and rooted in a political feeling.
80008 -65 Vi
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
I think it is clear to us that the Canadian challenge has always been to balance the regional and the national without obliterating either. Today, the temptation is to retreat into the regions at the risk of losing sight of the nation. But that is a reaction to the trend in recent years where the tendency, fueled by this government, has been to impose a form of so-called national unity which has threatened local identity. The country was committed to universality in social programming, which suggested that we treat all regions as though they were the same, although we knew they were not.
Of course national standards are necessary in this country, and we in this party will maintain that as a basic principle, but it is also necessary for us to sit down with the provinces and discuss the kind of flexibility which might be built into national standards to ensure that both national and local aims are realized, because in the name of national standards and joint programs this government has forced some provinces to forgo some programs which the duly elected governments of their locales thought would better serve their needs.
The central government has refused to move on cable, refused to grant provinces effective control of their offshore resources and continues to stall provincial status for the Yukon, all refusals which seem funded either on a fear of the regions or on an arrogant belief that the national government can understand local development better than can local governments. That arrogance is misplaced, and it is the unanimous view of the members of this party and of most of the country that we have nothing to fear from strong regions as long as there is a strong national government too.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Indeed, there would be incalculable harm to Canada if we were to destroy the defining capacity of our local places and the defining identity of each of us who comes from those places to take our seats in this House of Commons, to bring the benefit of that experience to the cumulative business of Canada. Our virtue, as a Canadian community, is precisely that there is not one single way of being a Canadian and no uniform way of expressing our identity. Most of us enjoy that freedom from uniformity. It has let some fo us become a Maureen Forrester or a Bobby Orr. It has allowed others to raise good families quietly or to pursue other private goals. Political freedom is rare enough in the world, but the kind of social and cultural freedom which is the hallmark of Canada is even less common.
We have established here, partly by design and partly by the accident of history, a respect for differences and a tradition of diversity which is rare and valuable, and without which we would all be much poorer. Most of us define ourselves by where we come from, so there is always the danger that we will also confine ourselves to where we come from. This nation is rare in the opportunity it allows us to keep our roots yet to go beyond them. The particular challenge to us, I think, was expressed in the quotation earlier from Professor Frye because

February IB, 1977
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
he made the point that the essential task of unity is a political task. It is a challenge and a responsibility to those of us who work in this profession to make institutions like the Parliament of Canada work as an agency which not only reflects the country but also allows it to move forward. In my judgment, and in the judgment of my colleagues here, we have important work to do to re-establish the strength and the capacity of our national institutions to command the attention and respect of the country.
I want to quote a western author, Wallace Stegner, who remarks in one of his works that "history is a pontoon bridge. Every man walks and works at its building end". That phrase, "the building end", describes a spirit we find uniquely on this continent. We have a place to build, and that sense of opportunity drew many of us and many of our ancestors here from more traditional places. That same spirit also provided the imagination and the energy to start great ventures and to dream large dreams. We have lost something of that sense in the last decade, when our political priority has been security rather than expansion. We have important programs of social justice and security in place now, and it is time for this country to begin again to build.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: It is time to remind Canadians of our unique opportunities and to provide them with the means and the encouragement to act. In some cases that requires incentives to allow those with resources to develop them; for others it means providing the jobs and training which provide a base for building. That capacity to build, to grow and to achieve one's own identity and to make one's own future is the promise and the nature of this country, and what we are discussing today in the legislation before us is part of the plumbing, part of the arrangements, which keep that kind of country in place. However, what we really must face in this parliament and elsewhere in the months to come is the larger question, not of the arrangements of the country but of the integrity of the country. We need to establish again a unifying sense of purpose, a sense which applies to building, a sense that there is more to Canada than simply conflicts over constitutions or tax points. This requires us, as members of parliament, to look upon other governments and members of other legislatures in the land not as adversaries but as partners. There has not been enough of that atmosphere of partnership in the country. Its absence has contributed to our present problems as a nation.
As I said at the beginning, we accept the arrangements which are before us, but we do not accept the atmosphere which has characterized the relations between the governments of this country for the last decade, arrangements of conflict, of confrontation and of controversy. If we are to retain the strength and the integrity of this nation, we believe that we must restore a sense of co-operation and of partnership, and it is to that purpose that we in this party are dedicated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to thank my Conservative colleagues for their rousing round of applause as I got to my feet.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We thought you were finished.


An hon. Member:: You are deluding yourself again.


John Edward Broadbent: More than any other piece of legislation since parliament resumed last fall, this bill tells us what kind of Canada the Liberal party now believes in. I say this because the subjects involved-cost sharing for post secondary education, medicare, hospitalization and equalization-go to the very roots of the federal system, and I for one would have liked to have heard what the official opposition had to say on precisely these topics.
I listened with considerable care and no mean interest to see if the specific proposals which really do deal with fundamental questions which are found in this bill were going to get the endorsation or criticism of the official opposition, but I certainly heard nothing in that regard today. They are the fundamental aspects of a fundamental statement that we are dealing with, and they are at the core of this bill. They tell us something basically important about the government. Does it really believe that a woman working in a fish plant in Newfoundland, for example, has full equality in terms of certain aspects of life when compared to a bank clerk in Toronto or a rigger at some oil well in Alberta? I say this is what is involved precisely because the expectation for the lives of families in all these three areas and indeed throughout Canada, will be significantly determined by the capacities of the provincial governments concerned to provide for medical and hospital services, education, and other direct services dependent upon provincial revenues, all of which are determined by this bill for years to come.
A Canadian government believing in justice must work constantly to achieve equality of condition in certain major aspects of life. Without it, not only is our sense of fairness offended but also our commitment to nationhood in a federal society falters. Regional inequities in such matters are not only unjust, they produce disunity.
This morning the minister described the bill as a "latter day evolution" of our system of transfer payments. This bill does not represent evolution at all. It is the first major step toward the balkanization of our country; it is a step backward in history which may do us all untold damage in the years ahead.
Before elaborating on this point, I want to say something about the position the provincial premiers took on this set of proposals. Contrary to what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has told us, and contrary to what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) suggested, the financial conditions established by this bill were not agreeable to the provinces. Speaking on their behalf at the meeting of the first ministers on December 14, 1976, Premier Lougheed said, and I quote from the official transcript of the meeting which, of course,
February 18, 1977

was a closed meeting, but this is what he said as part of his summary of the reaction 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.
Since the provinces realized that the final authority rested with the federal government, since existing arrangements were due to terminate on March 31 this year, and since they believed that if they did not accept this package of proposals worse still might be thrust down their throats, to put it bluntly they accepted, just before Christmas. As Premier Lougheed put it, "they were left with no alternative". This "no alternative" proposed by the federal government and rejected in detail by all the provinces has just been accepted in principle by the official opposition in the House of Commons, I might also note.
I want now to go to what I regard as the essence of the details put before us in this complex bill today. The fundamental changes that the government is making in our system of financial relations between the government and the provinces is to be found in the manner it proposes to finance continuing expenditures on hospital insurance, medicare and post-secondary education. The inevitable effect of these proposals is to downgrade the national government's role in ensuring minimum standards in health services and in post-secondary education. The inevitable result is to put the total risk of innovative programs in these fields on the provinces. And the inevitable result, I regret to say, is to make the richer provinces of Canada richer and the poorer provinces poorer.
At present, the federal government pays 50 per cent of costs of approved medicare and hospital insurance programs, and 50 per cent of operating costs of post-secondary education. Although this arrangement gave greater advantage to the wealthier provinces than is desirable, for the obvious reason that even if they only have to raise 50 per cent of the cost it is easier to do so for the wealthier provinces than it is for the poor-it was none the less a desirable approach to paying for needed social programs, for two important reasons. First, the federal government was helping the poorer provinces provide services on a continuing basis which they might not otherwise be able to afford. That surely is important. Second, the federal government's share on a 50-50 basis of the financial risks inherently involved in any new program made the burden of innovation in these important areas of Canadian life less risky to the provinces. Again, this is an important plus for the existing arrangements.
Having said this, Mr. Speaker, the existing financial arrangements have not been without their problems. The federal government was harsh and inflexible under the present Prime Minister in applying programs in these fields. For example, it applied the 50-50 formula in the hospital field only to expensive acute care hospitals but not to more effective health care delivery systems such as nursing homes and community health services. This is an important point in the fundamental inadequacy of the administration, not of the financing, of these existing programs.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
What should have been done to correct this was to make the financing more flexible. This could have led to the inclusion of nursing homes and related facilities, and ultimately to a lowering of health service costs. That would have been an imaginative and flexible approach under the existing arrangements. Instead, the federal government first placed an arbitrary ceiling on the amount it would contribute to these programs. This inevitably, as the government knew, increased the burden on the provinces, and proportionately put an even greater burden on the poorer provinces. Not content with that element of unfairness and inequity, the government produced the regressive proposals which resulted in the bill we are discussing this afternoon.
What has the federal government come up with as a solution to this very significant problem of existence in Canada-the very significant problem associated with paying for postsecondary education, medicare services, hospital insurance and provisions of all kinds? It has replaced the 50-50 cost-sharing formula with a proposal which removes entirely its 50 per cent of obligation with the transfer of 13'/2 tax points, plus some slight equalization compensation to be made to the provinces.
What this amounts to in substance is equalization in reverse. A tax point varies in value to the provinces from $4 per head at one end to $10 at the other end depending on the province. The "equalization"-and in this context I put that in question marks-formula proposed by the federal government is based on the national average instead of the richest province. These are combined, and the net effect is that the richer provinces of Ontario and British Columbia come out on top.
According to confidential internal Department of Finance tables, Canada's richest province, Ontario, will reap a bonanza of $1.3 billion over the next ten year period as a result of this legislation. That is $1.3 billion more than any other province and more than that province is getting currently under existing arrangements. That is the kind of proposal to which the official opposition gave its official endorsement in principle today. What a package of proposals. It is going to make the richest provinces of Canada richer and inevitably work against the majority of our low income provinces.


An hon. Member:: Where were you when our leader spoke?


John Edward Broadbent: I was right here.


Mr. Woolliams:: I wonder if the hon. member is going to tell the people in his constituency that he is in favour of the people of Ontario paying higher taxes.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, unlike the Conservatives, members of the NDP say the same things in all parts of the country.
We have, then, a government solution which not only imposes the continuing financial burden of medicare, hospital and post-secondary education services on the provinces but, as well-and this is of equal importance-favours the rich prov-

February 18, 1977
Federal- Provincial Fiscal Arrangements inces directly, by equalizing the tax point transfer to the average, not to the top.
It cannot be argued that the government was unaware of the consequences of this kind of change. The Prime Minister himself said at the December meeting "the richer provinces were bound to benefit more from the tax point transfer than were the poorer provinces." I am quoting from the transcript of the official proceedings of the meeting. I hope when Conservative members go back to their constituencies in Atlantic Canada, they will make it clear that the principles they are supporting today will make it clear that the principles they are supporting today will have negative effects in Atlantic Canada. When they return to their constituencies I hope they will not reverse their position on this legislation. I hope they will not do what they did with regard to the government's unemployment insurance changes when they discovered the implications of those changes.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I thought that was a good amendment.


John Edward Broadbent: Knowing that the rich provinces were bound to benefit more from the tax point transfer than the poor provinces, the Prime Minister proceeded to force on the provinces the most regressive set of federal-provincial financial measures to be brought forward since the Second World War. I see this move as reflecting a philosophy of federalism which is inherently unfair and dangerous to national unity. One of the factors holding Canada together is a social security system which has common elements from coast to coast-unemployment insurance, family allowances and old age security. Canadians share these on an equal basis, not on the basis of the ability of their provinces to foot the bill. They identify in part with the nation's capital because they perceive the fairness of treatment involved in these programs. Until now many of us in the House of Commons regarded hospital care, medical services and post-secondary education as permanent parts of this attempt to build equality of condition across Canada.
The introduction of this bill means that inequality in Canada will increase, not diminish. The wealthier provinces will be better able to maintain and improve their positions in all these fields. For the poorer provinces the situation is reversed. For them it will be more difficult to maintain present programs and almost impossible to introduce new ones.
Giving the poor provinces additional tax points is analogous to saying that millionaires and poor people have equal rights to buy Cadillacs. Basic and central to this proposal is the fact that some 13.5 tax points are being taken away from the national government, which is in a position to correct glaring inequalities, and given to the provinces. Just imagine what 13.5 tax points will mean for Prince Edward Island, as opposed to what it would mean to Ontario, Alberta or British Columbia. No wonder people interested in fairness find this proposal repulsive.
The NDP has always believed that the national government must play a major and innovative role in Canada's social security programs. It is absolutely essential, for the sake of

equality in Canada, that the national government should innovate and maintain programs of high quality in all regions. It is absolutely essential, for the sake of national unity, that Canadians wherever they live in this country, whether in Cape Breton, Toronto, Calgary or the Gaspesie region of Quebec should perceive that when they participate in certain fundamental programs they are treated as equals. In this bill we see the beginning of the categorical rejection of the co-operative federalist approach so imaginatively embarked on in the 1960's by the late prime minister Pearson. He took up the challenge thrown out by a number of Canadians and, in the name of decency, used the powers and financial capacities of the central government to make the country's social programs fairer for all.
By introducing this legislation, and I say this with care and seriousness, the government has begun a process of balkanization which, in a few years, could pit the rich provinces against the poor provinces in a way we have not experienced for decades. That should be of concern to everyone who is disturbed by the crisis of Confederation.
Unless significantly corrective steps are taken soon, the full impact of this bill on our country's future will be negative indeed. Therefore, because we believe in national standards, because we believe that Canadians one day ought to live together in a state of genuine equality, and because we are very much committeed to maintaining a sense of unity in the country, which can only come about if people share on a common basis the benefits of citizenship, we reject this bill, will vote against it and will, in the years ahead, just as we have in the past, propose a positive role which the federal government should play in these areas of concern.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I didn't hear much applause. I would have clapped if I had known there would be so little response.


John Edward Broadbent: I would be concerned if you thought my speech good, Eldon.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I was here when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) began his statement, but unfortunately I could not come back at two o'clock because there was a delegation in my office and they did not leave before three o'clock. I would have liked to hear the entire speech of the Minister of Finance as well as that of the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark). Nevertheless I want to say a few words on the beginning of his statement which surprised me at first because he was apparently congratulating himself for the last fiscal agreement and the last meeting with his provincial counterparts.
We were under the impression that his first meeting with the provincial finance ministers had not been successful because for the first time the ministers stood united against the federal Minister of Finance. This is why I am somewhat surprised by the comments of the minister who gives us to understand that everything was fine. According to him, the

provincial leaders left quite satisfied, because after his failure with the provincial Finance ministers he had to appeal to the premiers. Here again the premiers kept their proceedings open at the beginning, but then had to meet behind closed doors as they do each year and discuss. I am told that discussions were sometimes rather heated, that there was the odd skirmish, but nothing else can be said because it took place in camera. Strangely enough, the country's problems are always solved in camera. The storm over, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) comes in the House and says: All is well. Everyone was singing. And yet the echoes coming from the province of Quebec are quite different. Quebec newspapers report that the Quebec finance minister, the premier and their colleagues are not altogether satisfied with the arrangements.
Obviously, they had to accept at last the small share they were offered, so they said, because once more we really do not know what happened and we may never know, as for the 40 other federal-provincial meetings. It is always a game of hide and seek for parliamentarians. All they say in Quebec is that Quebec is not at all satisfied.
I heard someone say a moment ago that the richer provinces will be the beneficiaries. Of course they will, because they are the ones that pay more. They are also the ones from which more is withheld. When Quebec spokesmen request tax powers in areas under their jurisdiction I believe they are right in making such claims, even though the minister says that finally an agreement has been signed and $8.5 billion have been definitely returned to the provinces. The breakdown of these $8 billion is as follows: transfers in the amount of $5.5 billion, tax points in the amount of $3 billion, that is 1314 per cent of tax points.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that if the government had wanted to be honest, to be fair, it would simply have returned to the provinces those 8 billion in fiscal points, because they relate precisely to three provincial jurisdictions: health care, hospital care and education. The federal government enters the field of education with both feet through post-secondary education, and then it says education comes under federal jurisdiction. That is not true, education belongs to the provinces under the British North America Act. The health field also belongs to the provinces, and here comes the federal government, saying it has been tolerant toward the provinces, it has been good, it has been a good father because it gave them, after long disputes, 13 and a half fiscal points.
I am sure that is not what Quebec wanted. What it wanted was at least 38 or 39 per cent in fiscal points, and not the charities made to the provinces. That is what I call those fixed amounts, charities. If we really want to restore Confederation, if we really want to get the provinces to have more frank and open discussions, let us give them back their rights and they will come and discuss according to their rights. For the moment, we are simply giving them crumbs of their rights and keeping the lion's share for ourselves before later redistributing it at our discretion.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
Many will say that some provinces are happy with that. Of course! Some provinces get a lot of money out of equalization programs because the federal government says we must deal with regional disparities and we all know that some provinces expect to get more from the federal government. But why should we sap the power and ressources of the provinces only to try to even out the benefits among all the provinces? Mr. Speaker, would it not be wiser to let the provinces do themselves justice rather than play referee between all the provinces? That is where the government is going wrong.


Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Chambly (Mr. Loiselle) on a point of order.


Bernard Pierre Loiselle: Would the hon. member be prepared to answer a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) be prepared to hear the question of the hon. member for Chambly?


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: He can always ask it.


Bernard Pierre Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether the hon. member for Roberval is in favour of the 10 different systems of hospital insurance and of a different social program in each of the provinces of Canada or whether he believes in national unity and thinks that there should be similar systems throughout the country? This is my last question: could he tell the House whether he really knows the requirements set by Ottawa to enable a province to take part in the cost-sharing program?


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased about this question. The hon. member is asking whether I am in favour of the 10 different hospital insurance systems? Am I right?


Bernard Pierre Loiselle: Yes, you are.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Of course, I am for 10 systems; I am clearly opposed to the establishment of 11 different systems. The area of health must be under provincial responsibility. We now have 11 different systems but we do not have 11 provinces, only 10. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of eliminating duplication at the department and civil servant levels because it costs twice as much to Canada.
The administration of provinces is reflected in the federal government and people wonder why it costs so much, why budgets are so big. But of course budgets are big because with its taxation power the federal government has invaded all provincial fields to get the money. It creeps into all those fields, so it gets all the money. Health belongs to hospital administration which comes under provincial jurisdiction: it is

February 18, 1977
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
a provincial field of legislation. Education belongs to the provinces, not to the federal government.
Ottawa has invaded those fields because one day the provinces yielded their taxation powers at the request of the federal government in 1942 and it has kept them ever since. It pretended back-tracking but kept on invading and that is just what we are opposing: we do not want one system but ten. The province can look after its patients. Each province knows its needs; it is that kind of thing that Quebec is fighting for and it is justified to do so to keep its field of jurisdiction.
We will have a confederation when provinces have their autonomy and can live; it is somewhat like in a family. If the municipal council rules everything in the family, what is going to happen? What is going to happen is what is now happening in the provinces, because the government interferes too much in provincial business. That is all. All cards are mixed up. We surely have to ...


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Chambly (Mr. Loiselle) again on a point of order.


Bernard Pierre Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) allow me another question?


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, of course, the hon. member for Chambly may ask me another question.


Bernard Pierre Loiselle: Can the hon. member for Roberval explain how federal shared-cost programs-if he knows at all the terms under which the federal government, as he says, expects the provinces to operate-downgrade the autonomy of the ten Canadian provinces?


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, what an odd question! How do you downgrade someone's rights when you encroach on his land? You just walk right into his house and then ask: How am I undermining your authority? Why, you should not be that ridiculous! We know that today it is more expensive to have two collectors instead of one. Besides, the minister proved it the other day in the House when he said that when the federal government collects in Quebec or in other provinces, it gives them one-fifth of the amount collected. That's all, it is clear! We cannot afford to pay four-fifths to a collector. In our fields-I am still speaking about our provincial jurisdictions-if the provinces interfered with matters under the federal jurisdiction, I would be the first to tell them to beat it. But when the federal government interferes, for instance, with matters under the provincial jurisdiction, saying that it is much better and will be less costly for them, what is to be said? That's it, when they need a collector, they will pay four of them and pretend it is better this way. Collectors are not what we need, we must try to keep our credit and our money as well as administration powers in our provinces, our regions, and in matters which come under provincial jurisdiction.
We will have peace, but why all these fights in Canada? There have been fights since the federal government has interfered with provincial matters. As far as I know, it goes

back to that time, to the "great invasion." Everything had to be centralized here in Ottawa. All taxation powers had to be kept here in Ottawa to redistribute revenues later on to the provinces, as if they were too stupid to meet their own citizens' needs. That's it! Take for instance the field of education: post-secondary education is all very fine; I will say a few words about it: I deal a lot with that matter in my constituency. But it is ridiculous! You should know how much is spent for nothing in this area, and we do not know where to go. Financing is secured by the federal government, but the teachers are hired by the provincial government. There are courses in there that are not worth a nickel but that is paid by the federal government. The federal government's money must be used. But come on, if the percentage of taxation powers necessary to administer the whole province was there. Do not forget that Quebec is paying for those courses. They are given by Quebec teachers paid by the federal government. Why is that? If it were given its taxation rights would Quebec not have the means to pay its teachers just as well as the federal government? We know that when the federal government gets $5 from Quebec it gives $1 back. Come on, those teachers cost a lot in the end.
That is why I say a common effort will have to be made concerning the remittance of taxes. It is all very nice for the minister to start by returning 13.5 per cent. He should have returned 40 per cent. He would have been left alone, and all the premiers would have gone back happy. But no, he is again going to give them an amount of money, $5.5 billion with $3 billion worth of tax points. It is a small gain but the provinces must earn all the points. It is funny to hear me say that, because I am a federalist. But I want everyone to work in his area, and then we are going to have peace. As I said earlier, if the mayor of a city should try to tell the father of a family what to eat, how to dress and how to act in his home he is going to get thrown out. It is the same thing for the provinces.
Quebec is being shouted at today, and people find it extravagant and unfair but it is only asking for what belongs to it. It never asked a single thing of what belongs to the federal government. Never. That is all it is asking, as well as the other provinces. I sat the other day with the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. It is the same thing for them. They are clapping hands and very happy. They said, that is the autonomy we have been asking for for years to be able to serve our people-the necessary taxation power to give them equivalent services. That is not asking for the moon, and that is all they are asking for. Not only Quebec, but all the other provinces ask for this! But why do we insist, and this is where I do not understand the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), why do we still keep the taxation powers for ourselves? Why? You want Canadian unity? I want Canadian unity myself, but let us act accordingly. As long as you act like you are now doing with your centralization, your dictatorship over the provinces, the provinces will revolt, and you have not finished yet! Give them back what belongs to them, this is all that they want, and take care of your own business.
February 18, 1977

Take care of your own sector, the federal sector, and you will have quite enough to do to administer your sector well. You are not even able to administer your own sector as you should, and you want to interfere in provincial sectors. Let us start simply by doing something honest and logical, then let us give back to the provinces what is theirs, and you shall see how well federal-provincial conferences will go! They will not be a farce like you said earlier. You may hold up your fist and tell Parliament: "It went like a charm!" Yes, it went like a charm if it is a boxing round that you had in mind, but that is not all that we want. If you want to save Canada, this is not what you should do, and it is a French Canadian who is telling you this! If you want to save Canada, stop acting like that and be careful! Give each province, and not only Quebec, its own rights, and then we can start to write a new constitution and to live in a new Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I call it four o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being four o'clock p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills and private bills.


Walter David Baker: I believe there is consent to proceed with private member's motion No. 6.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it agreed that all motions prior to motion No. 6 stand at the request of the government?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, October 29, 1976, consideration of the motion of Mr. Yewchuk:
That in the opinion of this House, the government should take independent action to examine the relationship between artificial food additives and hyperactivity in children as well as between additives and behavioural changes in adults.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.
Artificial Food Additives


Mr. MacFarlane:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I believe I do wish to say a few words.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I think I should explain to the House that I did not recognize the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) because he moved the motion and has spoken on it previously.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: I merely want to clarify the situation. Actually I believe there is another speaker on Your Honour's list who comes before me.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to make a contribution to the debate on this important subject, one about which we are just as concerned as the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) and his hon. friends. I think the only real question in dispute in respect to this motion is whether the type of investigation which is recommended needs to be independent, to quote the words of the hon. member's motion.
In order to make an intelligible contribution to the debate I should like to begin on a more general basis by dealing with the question of chemicals in the food supply. Chemicals in the food supply include the thousands of natural chemical constituents. The most valuable, of course, are proteins, fats, carbohydrates, and essential minerals and vitamins. However, there are many other naturally occurring chemicals; for example, an orange contains acetone, ethanol, methanol, etc. Other chemicals in the food supply include pesticide and veterinary drug residues; environmental contaminants such as PCB's, heavy metals such as lead, mercury, cadmium, arsenic, etc., natural toxins-bacterial toxins, fungal toxins and natural components of foods such as salanine in potatoes-and last but not least, intentional food additives, flavours and spices.
Now what about the possible relationship between food allergens and hyperactivity? Today the general public seems to be increasingly concerned that foods and food additives may be a major cause of hyperactivity in children. However, there is some evidence that hyperactivity in children may actually be a manifestation of an allergic reaction.
Hypersensitivity reactions, commonly known as allergies, to foods have been described in the medical literature for centuries. Hypersensitivity reactions have been observed in humans following exposure to pollens, dust, certain chemicals and, in a few isolated cases, to some artificial food colours and additives.
Food allergies of various types affect 30 to 40 per cent of the human population. An individual hypersensitive to a food may have symptoms ranging from nasal stuffiness, hives, eczema, rash, migraine headache, nausea, diarrhoea, or even a serious attack of asthma up to anaphylactic shock, or even death.
The range of foods to which people can be allergic is almost limitless. The most common causes of food allergy are milk, grains, especially wheat, eggs, fish, shellfish, fruit, especially strawberries, chocolate and nuts. In addition to natural foods,

February 18, 1977
Artificial Food Additives
food additives such as tartrazine, parabens, vegetable oils, protein additives, caffeine, cyclamates, flavours, etc. have been implicated in allergic reactions.
Let me now talk a little about hyperkinesis or hyperactivity. These are terms used to describe a syndrome in children whose unusual behaviour becomes a major problem in the home and at school. These children may be described as being constantly active, flitting from one object or activity to another, restless and fidgety; exhibiting voluble, uninhibited speech, disorganized thinking, and impulsive behaviour. They are irritable and aggressive, have a short attention span and are easily distracted.
There is some concern that hyperactive children may have emotional disorders as adults. The characteristics of these children, including impulsive behaviour, short attention span, attention-seeking behaviour, and low tolerance to frustration in the face of social and educational difficulties, suggest that this group may become abusers of alcohol and other drugs in their teenage years. One study indicates that there may be a relationship between hyperactivity and subsequent alcoholism. This study showed a higher incidence of alcoholism and hyperactivity amongst the biological parents than the adopting parents of adopted hyperactive children. In addition it was observed that hyperactives have a high incidence of hyperactivity and alcoholism amongst their relatives.
With respect to other types of anti-social behaviour, there are reports of cases of explosive personality characterized by aggressiveness with a "hair trigger" temper. In these cases the explosive personality was preceded by hyperactivity in childhood.
While there are few follow-up studies of hyperactive children, most of the evidence indicates that they have a relatively poor outcome. There is usually a high incidence of anti-social behaviour and contact with police, and many have become institutionalized as delinquents or have become psychotic. Follow-up studies suffer from a lack of comparison groups, from small samples and from inadequate analysis of behavioural pathology. The incidence of alcohol, and drug abuse in particular, has not yet been examined in detail.
Statistics on the incidence of hyperactivity in school children vary considerably among investigators. This variation stems primarily from the lack of agreement among scientists on either terminology or definition of the syndrome. For example, school authorities report the incidence of hyperactivity in children to be as high as 15 to 20 per cent, while psychiatrists estimate the prevalence to range from 4 to 10 per cent.
Investigators feel there are several possible factors associated with hyperactive behaviour in children. For example, some hyperactive children exhibit abnormal brain waves which have been related to physical brain damage during birth; however, the relationship between brain damage and hyperactivity is unclear.
In addition, genetically inherited metabolic disorders have been considered as a potential cause of hyperactivity. Hyper-

activity occurs four to ten times more frequently in male than in female children.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have been listening to the hon. member reading his speech for the last 15 minutes. I should like to bring to your attention paragraph 144 of Beauchesne, which reads as follows:
It is a rule in both Houses of Parliament that a member must address the House orally, and not read from a written, previously prepared speech-
I should think that the hon. member, having been here since 1968, would pay sufficient attention to the rules of the House to follow this particular rule. After nine years in this place he surely should be able to make a speech without having to read every word of it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I think this point was brought up previously by the hon. member. Again I must repeat that the Chair does not want to challenge authorities such as he has quoted. No doubt the hon. member for Wind-sor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) was referring to notes which he has, and perhaps he would resume the normal practice in this House when making speeches.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will admit that I cannot speak with my customary fluency on a matter of this technicality without more frequent reference to my notes than is usually the case.
As I was saying when I was interrupted, it should be pointed out that similar sex ratios have been recorded for many congenital syndromes in medicine but no firm evidence exists that the sex chromosomes are involved in the transmission of these abnormalities. Whether the hyperactivity syndrome is genetic or sex-linked is not known, because of a lack of knowledge of inheritance patterns involved in hyperactivity.
Some investigators have associated hyperactivity in children with accidental poisoning by chemicals such as lead, but the clinical evidence to date is inconclusive. It is known, however, that hyperactive children have a greater tendency to accidental poisoning in the home, presumably due to their intense restlessness.
The belief in the relationship of food additives and hyperactivity has evolved primarily as a result of clinical studies conducted by Dr. Benjamin Feingold, a San Francisco physician. He recorded a marked clinical improvement in 50 per cent of hyperactive children treated with his "salicylate free diet," also called a K-P diet. This treatment permitted a discontinuation of all drug therapy and resulted in a substantial improvement in scholastic achievement in these children. The diet given to the children contained no food additives' or foods such as tomatoes, potatoes, cucumbers, squash, jams, nuts and virtually all fresh fruits, that naturally contain salicylates.
These initial clinical studies, as Dr. Feingold agrees, were empirical in nature. Although beneficial effects were observed, it is not possible to draw definitive conclusions from these
February 18, 1977

data. In order to accommodate the child's needs, the diet must be strictly adhered to. This necessitated a dramatic modification in family life-style. Therefore it is unclear whether the improvement in the children was due to the diet or to the additional care given the children in these particular circumstances. In addition, the severely restrictive diet has been criticized by many nutritionists as being nutritionally inadequate.
Other investigators have designed projects to determine if a relationship exists between food additives and hyperactivity.
One preliminary attempt to investigate the hypothesis is the study designed by Connor, of Pittsburg's School of Medicine. This study involved 15 children diagnosed in accordance with the American Psychiatric Association's definition of hyperkinetic reaction of childhood.
In this study, both parent and teacher ratings showed a statistically significant difference between measurements made at baseline and those made after the children had been on the K-P diet. It is interesting to note that, when the K-P diet was measured against a control diet, teacher ratings showed a statistically significant difference, but parental ratings did not.
Dr. Connor concludes that "the special diet may reduce hyperkinetic symptoms" but warns, and I quote:
... it would be hazardous at this point to draw too many conclusions from this experiment, given the small size of the sample and the lack of complete consistency in the results. Any thoughtful observer will understand that a major intervention into dietary habits of a family will produce behavioural effects, regardless of the specific diets, a phenomenon well understood in the management of such conditions as juvenile diabetes. The results would have been substantially clarified if it had been possible to have objective measures of function uncontaminated by the psychological factors which are bound to operate in the family-school-child system. At this point, the results point to the need for considerable further investigation.
Perhaps the most significant of all studies is that conducted by a team at the University of Wisconsin. This represents the first systematic investigation of the hyperactivity-food additive hypothesis. It includes objective psychologic, psychophysiologic and classroom observational data in addition to parent and teacher ratings of behavioural change associated with dietary manipulations. The study was designed in such a way that teachers, parents, clinical investigators, and classroom and laboratory observers of the children's activity level were unaware throughout the course of the investigation whether the child was on the special diet or on a diet containing artificial colours and flavours. Both the experimental and control menus were prepared from commercially available food stocks.
Available results indicate that of the 36 mothers with boys in the 6-12 year group, 13 rated their son's behaviour as improved on the special diet, while 6 rated their child's behaviour as worsened. Seventeen of the maternal ratings showed less than 10 per cent change due to effects of diet. Of the 30 fathers rating the behaviour of this same age group, 14 rated their son as improved, 3 as worsened and 13 essentially unchanged. In contrast, only 6 of the 36 teachers rated those on the special diet as less hyperactive, 10 rated them as showing more active behaviour while on the experimental diet, and 20 of the teacher ratings showed little change between the
Artificial Food Additives
two diet conditions. Agreement between parent and teacher ratings of improved behaviour while on the experimental diet occurred in only 4 of the 36 children.
The observational data collected on a number of behaviours in the classroom and in a standardized laboratory task yielded very few ratings of improvement in association with the experimental diet. Preliminary statistical analysis of these data has been completed and no statistically significant effect was apparent.
However, the younger children (age 3-6) showed a greater positive response on the experimental diet as indicated by parent rating. All 10 mothers in this group rated their child's behaviour as improved, as did 4 of the 7 fathers in this sample.
Thus, with the possible exception of the youngest age sample, the preliminary analysis completed to date in ' the Wisconsin study does not appear to offer strong support for the efficacy of the experimental diet, at least with respect to group effects. The University of Wisconsin research team, however, has repeatedly emphasized the still incomplete status of their project saying that a number of the objective measures obtained on the subject have not yet been tabulated.
A study was recently conducted at the University of Western Ontario to determine the relative effectiveness of dietary and drug management of hyperkinesis. Preliminary findings suggest that the effect of diet was ambiguous. Parents and teachers were of the opinion that dietary infractions involving artificial food colours and flavourings had minimal and insignificant effects.
The aforementioned studies conducted to date clearly indicate the potential difficulties in any attempt to test the food additive-hyperactivity hypothesis. The small sample size used reduces the significance of all findings and makes the use of statistical analysis extremely difficult. Furthermore, the use of outpatients in all these projects makes difficult the control of compliance. Also, specificity of responsiveness must be studied by challenging subjects with individual groups of substances, such as artificial colours or flavours or salicylates. Finally, results are meaningless if strict adherence to guidelines is not preserved throughout the entire duration of an experiment.
Several other studies currently under way have been funded by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. These include a study on the hyperkinetic syndrome in children being conducted at the Kaiser Permanent Foundation Research Institute in California. The study should be completed in about 1 year. A second study, at the University of Wisconsin, is designed to identify children who respond to the K-P diet.
Much more definitive scientific information is needed to determine if the consumption of food additives is related to the hyperactive syndrome in children and the ultimate effects in adults. This is very expensive.
A study sponsored by the Department of National Health and Welfare is now underway in a Canadian hospital.


Paul Yewchuk: Which hospital?
80008-66'/2

February 18, 1977
Artificial Food Additives


Mark R. MacGuigan: This study will address itself to some of the concerns associated with the validity of the results of former studies.
The Health Protection Branch is collaborating in this study by determining whether or not the children involved in the study are allergic to various food additives. It is hoped that this will permit an assessment of a possible association between allergies due to specific food allergens and hyperactivity in children.
It is the aim of all the studies described to determine the principal causes of hyperkinesis with a view to reducing the incidence of this disease. Obviously:
... the syndrome of the hyperactive child, regardless of its cause, is a real and trying condition for all who are associated with its victim. Cures cannot be found until the causes are understood.
I think this indicates that the government is very concerned about the subject, is pursuing research in the matter, and therefore the independent action called for by the hon. member for Athabasca is not needed.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech on this motion, which I will read for the benefit of those hon. members who have not read it. It reads as follows, and it is in the name of the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk), seconded by the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis):
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take independent action to examine the relationship between artificial food additives and hyperactivity in children as well as between additives and behavioural changes in adults.
I found it interesting that just a few moments ago the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) indicated that certain studies were going on in a Canadian hospital. When the hon. member for Athabasca asked him in a very clear voice to identify the hospital, the hon. member could not do so. I am not suggesting that the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville would intentionally mislead the House, but it would be interesting for us in the House and for the people of Canada to know the extent of the studies and the places where they are being carried out.
There are a couple of reasons why I have involved myself in this debate. And following a former dean of law at a Canadian university-not a medical doctor, but a dean of law-who has involved himself in a matter which is medical, as a lawyer I feel comfortable in this debate.
I am concerned about this problem. This possible relationship has been brought to my attention by teachers, people involved in the administration of education, and educators generally in the area which I represent. They share the concern I feel. I hope government members do not talk this motion out, and the reason for that is that this motion has been moved by a medical doctor who has practicised family medicine in a small town in Alberta, Lac la Biche. He has been engaged in the practice of family medicine, and that has brought him into contact, in this context, with the problems which must accompany the life and the professional work of a

small town medical doctor in a way which is perhaps different from the experience of those who have had the advantage of practising in metropolitan areas.
It is a great tribute to the medical profession that the hon. member for Athabasca and other medical people are members of this House. When a medical man brings to the attention of this House something which is of concern to him, this House ought to listen. If there is nothing unreasonable in the proposal, the House ought to adopt the view that the motion should be accepted.
I am proud to be associated with the hon. member for Athabasca. He has been the critic of the Department of National Health and Welfare for the official opposition for some period of time, and he has immersed himself in the health problems of Canada. Aside from being qualified professionally to speak on this subject, he is also the father of six children. This motion has been advanced with some concern and some understanding, and I hope that it will be greeted as such and that we will not utilize all our time speaking on it. I hope the House will follow my suggestion and allow the matter to come to a vote. I myself do not intend to speak very long.
This matter has engaged not just the attention of the medical profession; it has gone far beyond that. I mentioned the educators and parents who have expressed concern since this information was released. I think I am being charitable when I say that we have had some difficulty convincing the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) that artificial food colouring poses a serious health threat to Canadians. Canadian standards are certainly not as stringent as those in the United States, and our fears were not at all allayed when in September, 1976, the Canadian Department of National Health and Welfare failed to follow the lead of the U.S. food and drug administration in banning red dye No. 2, red dye No. 4, and carbon black. At that time we discussed the matter with some seriousness, and it was of considerable concern.
This matter is so important that it has engaged the attention of the Canadian School Trustees Association, which has been in constant communication with the hon. member for Athabasca. In fact at the beginning of this month they reported on a meeting of its executive to my colleague. That meeting occurred in mid-January in Toronto, at which time concern was expressed about the whole question of food additives. That meeting also dealt in particular with motion No. 6, which is the subject matter of the debate today. The report of the president of the Canadian School Trustees Association is that after a lengthy, exhaustive, and thorough discussion of the problem the executive approved support for the effort of the hon. member for Athabasca to have the matter taken more seriously than it has been to date.
This is the kind of private members' motion to which we should give credence. If there are tests being conducted in other jurisdictions, the government can certainly have the benefit of the results of those tests. However, this House ought not to say, by its vote or by talking this motion out, to the Canadian people that it is not concerned. I want my colleagues
February 18, 1977

on the other side of the House to know that the official opposition is very concerned, and the people of Canada ought to congratulate the hon. member for Athabasca for the persistence he has exhibited with regard to this motion.
The president of the Canadian School Trustees Association also indicated that he was going to request the chairman of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. McRae) to place the subject matter of this motion on the agenda of that standing committee, and why not? There are medical reasons why this matter should be considered, and there is a request by an agency which is involved, so is there any reason why this House should talk out this motion or vote against it?
I felt I should rise and support the action of the hon. member for Athabasca, who has done us a great service. We ought not to denigrate the spirit in which the motion was put forward or the importance of this question by failing to pass the motion or by talking it out, whichever the case may be. This is a matter which requires some re-evaluation, particularly in view of the way things containing food additives can cross the border. We should have strict standards. We certainly should be no less strict than other jurisdictions.
This matter need not have been brought to the attention of the House, if indeed it is being studied in the department-or, as we understand, it is to be studied, or may be studied in some unidentified hospital-but this House ought to indicate its concern and pass a motion which will not do anyone any harm but which may do the country a lot of good.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Before I recognize the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau), I should mention that at 3.50 p.m. the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) called it four o'clock, and that was proceeded upon. What the Chair might have failed to do was to seek the unanimous consent of hon. members, so therefore at this time I ask hon. members whether that is agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, motion No. 6 standing in the name of the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) gives us an opportunity to talk about the whole question of regulatory agencies for food safety and the whole question which the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) discussed. The fact is that a private member's initiative like this one does accomplish something.
The object of motions like this is to bring forward an idea or to bring forward something an hon. member would like to have studied. The fact that speeches are put on the record accomplishes what the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton wants to accomplish, and that is to bring the matter to this political forum and to make sure that all arguments are heard. From there, if action is needed, it is taken. It is in that light that I want to speak in this debate about the government's perception of regulatory responsibility in the area of food safety.
Artificial Food Additives
First of all, without a coherent philosophy the chances for operational success of a regulatory agency are few and far between. One of the objectives of the Health Protection Branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare is to provide an effective channel of communications between the calorie control food and beverage industry and government officials, and to ensure that necessary scientific, medical and other personal information is available and understood by all concerned. One of the goals of the Health Protection Branch is to ensure that foods consumed by Canadians are safe. Some, perhaps, consider this to be an unreachable goal but it is a goal which we must continuously strive for if in good conscience the Health Protection Branch is to carry out its responsibilities to the public. The magnitude of the task is exemplified by the sheer amount of food consumed in this country each year and the wide variety of sources from which it is obtained.
We can say with confidence that, in the main, the nation's food supply is safer than it has ever been before. Nevertheless, to paraphrase the Irish nationalist, John Philpott Curran, the price of safety is eternal vigilance. Regulations must never be relaxed and we must not reduce our vigilant surveillance of the nation's food supply. We must continuously tune out the shrill voices of those who proclaim one extreme or the other-on the one hand that there is nothing at all to be concerned about and, on the other, that we are all headed for some sort of dietary Armageddon.
The instruments which permit us to strive for the goal of a safe food supply include the Food and Drug Act and regulations. Apart from the Income Tax Act I cannot conceive of any legislation that has greater impact on the purse and the health of Canadians. Historians in the Health Protection Branch of National Health and Welfare believe it is derived from the oldest legislation dealing with food and drugs in the western hemisphere. Its ancestor was born 100 years ago- almost by accident-as a result of the concern about alcohol.
It is interesting to note that a century ago there was widespread concern in Canada about the social effects of alcoholism and broad public support for abolition of the sale of alcoholic beverages. In typical Canadian fashion-for it has long been our practice to appoint a royal commission to investigate contentious issues before making judgment on them-a committee of the House of Commons met to consider the problem raised by excess consumption of alcohol. It concluded that the problem was not one of all liquor but only of bad liquor. As a result, a law to license compounders of alcoholic beverages and to prevent the adulteration of food, drink and drugs-the so-called Inland Revenue Act- was passed by parliament and became operative on January 1, 1875. It was the great-grandfather of today's Food and Drugs Act.
I wish to highlight some of the statutory bases which the act provides for us. Most important, the Food and Drugs Act is criminal law. By virtue of the British North America Act, criminal law is within federal jurisdiction. The British North America Act deals with the legislative, executive and judicial

February 18, 1977
Artificial Food Additives
power by dividing the totality of public power among the federal government and the provinces. Food, drugs, cosmetics and medical devices are nowhere mentioned in the division of subjects of the public power in the British North America Act. This is not surprising, given the minor role of the state in health matters at the time of Confederation in 1867. These subjects are not explicitly mentioned. Control over those substances has, however, been determined to be a matter of criminal law and therefore within federal jurisdiction.
Several landmark decisions have upheld the federal primacy in this area and most authorities no longer seriously question it. Hence it is possible for us to legislate and regulate in these areas whether or not the subject matter is one which remains within a province or crosses provincial boundaries.
The Food and Drugs Act provides authority to establish standards for the composition and identity of foods; to prohibit the sale of foods that are manufactured under unsanitary conditions or are adulterated; and to prohibit the advertising, labelling, packaging, processing or sale of foods in a manner that is false, misleading or deceptive or is likely to create an erroneous impression regarding its character, value, quantity, composition, merit, or safety.
The practical enforcement of the Food and Drugs Act requires that certain sections be supplemented with regulations that interpret the act. Consequently there has been developed over many years an extensive body of regulations which provide standards, set out requirements for labelling and establish prohibitions or exemptions for certain substances within the scope of the act. The regulations, of course, frequently are changed as new foods are developed and new processes devised. The use of certain chemicals as direct or incidental additives, for example, is under continual review and new data on the safety of a particular chemical may require regulatory amendments.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Herb Breau: Yes.


Paul Yewchuk: The hon. member is talking about labelling the food supply. I wonder if he can explain to the House why most foods are not labelled specifically with regard to which chemicals are in them but simply say "artificial colouring and flavouring" rather than naming the specific chemical. The importance of that stems from the comments made by the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) who said that allergies can occur to certain chemicals in the food supply, but if they are not labelled people who may be allergic to them cannot tell. My question is: why has the government not taken action as far as labelling accurately is concerned, if not in banning some of these substances?


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer for the government on that point.


Paul Yewchuk: You are speaking for the government.
[Mr. Breau.J


Herb Breau: No, I am not speaking for the government. I am speaking to the motion.


An hon. Member:: You are blocking it for the government.


Herb Breau: I am speaking on the subject because I think it is a very important one. The objective desired by this motion, I believe, is covered by the Food and Drugs Act. There is no reason to have any other action.


Paul Yewchuk: I just gave a reason.


Herb Breau: The hon. member is asking for chemicals to be labelled or identified now. I do not see that in the motion.


Paul Yewchuk: You are talking about labelling.


Herb Breau: I talked about labelling because I went into the activities of the Health Protection Branch. I am explaining how that branch operates and what it does. It labels food and it does all the things I just mentioned.


Donald W. Munro: Not very well.


Herb Breau: I suppose the question the hon. member poses is an important one, as is his motion. I hope that someone can answer it later in the debate.
The Health Protection Branch, as a regulatory agency, is not isolated from the political process, though it is much more isolated from partisan politics than are some similar agencies elsewhere. The mechanism whereby it reports to a politically elected representative who has ministerial responsibilities before parliament, provides a continuing sensitivity to and awareness of the fact that the value judgments of society must be taken into account in reaching the final decisions about issues such as food safety, acceptable risks, and the legitimate role of a regulatory agency.
It is good that the hon. member interrupted to ask a question. This part of my notes answers his motion-that because the minister is responsible to parliament for the Health Protection Branch he has to be aware of what goes on in parliament and has to be aware of the initiatives of private members. I think it is very valuable to have this in our system, as the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton said. The Health Protection Branch is sensitive to all these things, and I am sure that is what is looked for in the motion. Since the hon. member brought the matter up, I assume it is important.
The task of the health protection branch is to provide the minister with the best advice, which means technically best advice. The minister bears responsibility for policy and often has to defend his decisions on the floor of the House of Commons or before parliamentary committees. It is against this general background that the enforcement philosophy and the administrative mechanisms to obtain compliance with the law are formulated.
Since Canada is a significant importer of food it is important to consider carefully the impact of legislation affecting

food commodities in other countries. Over the years close liaison has been developed with regulatory agencies of other countries, particularly those of the United States, the United Kingdom, Switzerland and Sweden. There are frequent consultations on matters relating to food safety, food recalls and so on, with officials of other countries.
The enforcement philosophy must be flexible and able to respond quickly if we are to deal effectively with the immense variety of complex situations we face in the area of food safety. An overly-rigid bureaucracy is no answer to the extremely difficult issues to be faced each day. There must be co-operation with responsible food manufacturers and the encouragement of voluntary compliance by industry. Unnecessary confrontation and adversary proceedings so far as possible should be avoided.
The Health Protection Branch is firmly committed to the notion of full discussion with industry prior to regulatory changes. In doing so its officials try hard to avoid excessive formalism and legalism. They recognize that government does not have a monopoly on talent or integrity and that the regulatory process must of necessity and economy involve extensive discussion among the various groups involved, including the regulators, the regulated, and representatives of consumers. Indeed the assistance of the regulated is required to make certain that proposed regulatory changes are both theoretically sound and capable of practical application.
In order to encourage and foster voluntary compliance and to avoid costly court proceedings, officers of the branch frequently meet with industry representatives, to discuss alleged violations. The field operations directorate runs the gamut of compliance-type action from private sessions with an offending company to instituting and completing court actions. For example, an informal technique called, for want of a better name, a formal hearing, is utilized in cases where the field staff is of the opinion that compliance may be gained without the institution of prosecution proceedings. Thus, where appropriate, administrative decisions are reached in discussions between industry representatives and officials which result in a greater assurance of the safety of foods for the public without resorting to court action.
This does not mean that court sanctions are not useful. In any industry, including the food industry, there are those who are too irresponsible, too venal or too obstinate to abide voluntarily by appropriate regulatory standards. In the Canadian context the resort in such cases to court action is necessary to make regulations work. Thus, there is no hesitation to go to the "mat" with people who, for whatever reason, repeatedly fail to comply with the law. Whether the compliance action is voluntary or imposed by a court, it is the duty of the health protection branch to make sure that regulations provide appropriate guidelines, to ensure that industry accepts and lives up to its responsibilities and obligations to the public.
Perhaps the most important underlying principle influencing the Health Protection Branch is its insistence on providing advice to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) which is based on good science. Accordingly branch
Artificial Food Additives
members consciously attempt to foster the attitudes and values of a scientific agency. They are not policemen; rather, they constitute a scientific regulatory agency which must be anchored on the rock of science if it is to ensure that the advice it gives the minister is of the necessary high calibre. Ministers may not have the necessary scientific expertise and would be vulnerable, personally and politically, if they attempted to second-guess their scientific advisers on scientific grounds. Therefore they must be careful in how they deal with the advice of their officials. Of course officials must set the highest possible standards of scientific excellence for their organization, and never depart from them.
Officials must recognize that many situations deal with other issues which must be considered in addition to the purely scientific factors involved. These issues, in an area of such vital importance as public health, must not be those of partisan politics, but they do legitimately include social and economic factors about which biomedical scientists are often less than fully knowledgeable. More important, they often include a perception of a value judgment of Canadian society about a given situation.
One of the most frustrating problems faced by scientific regulatory agencies such as the Health Protection Branch is the need to make judgments constantly and provide advice on the basis of inadequate evidence. It would, of course, be nice to wait until all of the data necessary for absolutely, unquestionably valid decisions could be collected. Because we live in an interdependent world, and because food can be transported quickly, the Health Protection Branch is sometimes asked to make its decisions rapidly. This is not an easy task, but it is the very essence of the work of a regulatory agency. In making such difficult benefit/risk decisions official agencies will not please everyone. The branch has evolved a system for making benefit/risk decisions. This includes a deliberate attempt to quantify as many variables as possible, in order for decisions to be made on a rational basis. The variables comprise several fundamental components which are opposed, compared, and weighed against each other.


Mr. Ellis:: Brilliant!


Herb Breau: There is risk, cost, loss, benefit and acceptability to the industry and the public. All these factors are recognized. When the risk is balanced against benefit, the risk will be considered as being acceptable in some situations, but not necessarily in others. All sorts of considerations are important-cultural, legal and philosophical. Such considerations sometimes modify the decisions which are made.
Before leaving this brief discussion on the factors involved in the assessment of food safety-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I interrupt the hon. member to inform him that his time has expired. I see the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) rising. Does he wish to raise a point of order?


Paul Yewchuk: No, Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak.

February 18, 1977
Artificial Food Additives


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Welland.


Mr. S. Victor Railton (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I enter this scientific debate with a certain amount of trepidation, bearing in mind the words of the opposition House leader who suggested that one certain member now present in the House ought not to enter into a scientific discussion involving the matters the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) has raised. Personally, I do not agree. I agree that the hon. member for Athabasca's background would lead to his interest in this matter. He has a scientifically trained mind. However, I took exception to the remarks of the opposition House leader, for I do not think they apply to the capabilities of the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan).


An hon. Member:: The unwise remarks.


Samuel Victor Railton: Yes, they were unwise remarks. The hon. member has the benefit of great legal training and experience, has no doubt been involved in the discussion of many scientific matters and is capable of digesting the material presented to this House. Frankly, the consideration of this subject requires a bit of common sense.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but in the absence of the opposition House leader 1 must object to the hon. member's misinterpreting what my House leader said. He did not in any way imply that the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) was not qualified to speak. He said they were both equally qualified to speak.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: That is a point of debate.


Samuel Victor Railton: I will not say anything more about that. I feel that the point I made is well taken. There were several questions raised by the hon. member. The first was in the latter part of October with regard to the study of food additives and hyperkinetic children as well as the effects of diets on adults, and drug therapy and so on. On November 18 last many questions were asked about the effects of Amaranth or Red Dye No. 2, and Ponceau Red Dye No. 4, and again whether carbon black had any effects on the health of the population. Again there were questions about the possible existence of co-carcinogens in the Canadian food supply, wanting to know what research the Department of National Health and Welfare is doing. There were similar questions about the research projects with regard to additives in the Canadian food supply and, finally, the effect of chloroform added to certain things.
These are good questions. The hon. member for Athabasca has the right to ask them. On the other hand, I think I can say that the Department of National Health and Welfare is no doubt looking into all these things. It makes the statement that it has.
The Department of National Health and Welfare just does not consist of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde). There are many, many people who are experts in science, not only clinical medicine but scientific research into all the aspects which the hon. member previously mentioned. He has no difficulty finding experts. They will give us the latest reports on their own experimental work as well as scientific review.
The department is quite aware of the fear in society about the effect of red dyes. A great deal of this is as a result of exaggerated publicity.
There is talk about labelling, but nothing has been proven that the red dye is harmful. Let us be sensible in our questions about this matter. First the metabolic effects or pharmacokinetic qualities of Amaranth or Red Dye No. 2 are being investigated right now in a variety of animal species. This is being done under the supervision of the Department of National Health and Welfare. As far as the tests to date are concerned, there have been no untoward effects noted in any of the tests. This fits in with other tests in other areas of the world.
Second, there are studies they are doing on research into the purity of the dye. There is no doubt that some of the effects ascribed to the dye have been due to the impurities in the additives which contain the dye. Not only are they doing these other chemical tests, but also microbial tests, trying to see if they have any potential on affecting the chromosomes or the future health genetically of the population.
As far as the tumor forming effect is concerned, I do not mean just carcinogenic but the causation of any kind of tumor practically. They have been carrying this out using a large number of cats as the test species. These tests have been completed. It seems there will be a report soon. So far, there seems to be no indication that there is this quality in the food additives, if pure.
The next question was about Red Dye No. 4. There are no adverse effects noted in the past regarding cancer or reproduction, nor is there any new evidence to suggest this colour poses a health risk. It is not used very often.
You have to ask how many people eat a great deal of food containing red dye? Has it ever been proved that the amount of red dye in use has really increased, not just because of the increase in population, but in effect in the food they are eating? Has it ever been found that this type of "hyperkinetici-ty" or the hyperkinetic child is found to be more frequent than ever before? It is one of these things that have been picked up in the last 20 years or so. We have no statistics whatsoever to show that this is on the increase. You have to go into those things.
There is the other question about the effects of carbon black. There is evidence in the literature to suggest that carbon black may actually protect experimental animals from the effects of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon content or impurities.

February 18, 1977

The Department of National Health and Welfare in addition to conducting studies is continually surveying world literature on carbon black. So far, nothing definite has been turned up.
With regard to the question of what is being done about sponsoring or conducting research on the existence of co-carcinogens in the Canadian food supply, the department has
Artificial Food Additives
ongoing research programs to identify co-carcinogens in the food supply.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has now expired pursuant to an order previously received by the Chair. It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at two o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 4:50 p. m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, February 21, 1977