1977-02-21

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity with reference to the possible appointment of a new commissioner for the RCMP. The RCMP first came into being as the North West Mounted Police in 1873. Its existence assured that the great plains, the wheat basket of the world, later to be known as Canada's source of gas and oil, could be developed and so allow Canada to become self-sufficient in energy and oil. The RCMP is a traditional police force.
Throughout the world the escalation of crime continues to be one of society's major problems. The RCMP, in full cooperation with all other police agencies in Canada, is committed to keeping crime in check and to reverse the trend of increased criminal behaviour. All the heads of the original North West Mounted Police, later known as the Royal North West Mounted Police and finally, in 1920, as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand the hon. member's sentiments. However, he is permitted, pursuant to Standing Order 43, only to explain the urgency of the matter. Perhaps the hon. member could put that forward, and put his motion.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I am just coming to that. All the heads of the RCMP were chosen from within its ranks, with one exception at its beginning. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds):
Thai the question of changing the tradition and, indeed, the precedent of appointing a commissioner of the RCMP from other than the ranks of the force be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for study and report before a head is chosen from another source.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL HERITAGE DAY
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, if the House will give its consent to the introduction of this motion under Standing Order 43, which I trust it will do, I believe it could be passed without debate. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House, on this special day, it being Monday, February 21, expresses its pride in Canada's heritage, regrets that the bill to establish national heritage day as a holiday has not been passed, and declares its confidence that the said bill will be passed during the present session of parliament.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask unanimous consent for the presentation of a motion under Standing Order 43 and do so because the provisions of the standing order require the matter to be one of urgent and pressing necessity. I raise this question in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) because of the provisions of that Standing Order and because of evidence which came to light over the weekend concerning circumstances surrounding the death of the Archbishop of Uganda and two cabinet ministers in that country. Therefore, with the leave of the House I will ask for unanimous consent to move the following motion, seconded by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald):
That this House condemns the government of Uganda denying due process of law to its citizens and calls upon President Amin to permit an impartial inquiry by the Commonwealth or the United Nations into the circumstances surrounding the deaths of the Archbishop of Uganda and two Ugandan cabinet ministers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

February 21, 1977
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion pursuant to the Standing Orders can be made only with the unanimous consent of the Elouse. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the federal government seems to have arrived at the point of approving plans initiated by one Robert Campeau for a new CBC headquarters on the Toronto harbourfront and in light of the fact the government seemed to have reached the stage of announcing the project at a press conference last Thursday, complete with a model of the $150 million project, all without having gone through any tendering process, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the government be instructed not to proceed with the approval of the new CBC headquarters building in the Toronto area without submitting the project to a complete public tendering process.


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:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It refers to the recent announcement that, after a lengthy study, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission has concluded that the possible threat of terrorist activity or sabotage against the 74 civilian-operated nuclear installations in that country warrants an immediate and significant increase in security. Can the minister tell the House whether Canada has been involved in any way in this review in the United States or

whether Canada is otherwise looking in any serious way into the state of security at our own reactor sites?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased to make inquiries to see whether there have been discussions at the official level between Canadian officials and United States officials on this question. I do know that from time to time there have been discussions between the Atomic Energy Control Board and the officials of Ontario Hydro and the other utilities in Canada.


Charles Joseph Clark: Given this most recent example of very real concern both in the United States and Canada about the special dangers that are involved in a modern nuclear society, will the minister undertake here and now to initiate a public inquiry, using a standing committee of this House or some other means, into nuclear energy in Canada and acquaint the public with the benefits and risks of nuclear energy?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member can make the case that such an inquiry before a parliamentary committee will not duplicate the work presently being done by the royal commission in Ontario under Mr. Porter or that such an inquiry will add to the kind of knowledge that he seeks, I will be prepared to consider it.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to point out to the minister that the terms of reference of the Porter inquiry by definition do not include installations in provinces other than Ontario and suggest to him that the onus is not upon me to make a case. That case has already been made by no less influential a body than the 1975 National Liberal Convention which went on record asking for precisely that kind of inquiry, and according to a report issued recently over the signature of one of the minister's colleagues on what is called the Consultative Council of the Liberal party-and a consultative council of the Liberal party must be something to behold-that is one of those questions on which no action at all has been taken. If the minister is prepared to ignore the opposition in the House of Commons, will he tell us why he will not at least pay attention to a resolution of his own party and have a public inquiry made?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: I am reminded from time to time of the Rip Van Winkle approach to policy taken by the hon. member opposite. If he had not been asleep for the past year he might have realized what was going on.


An hon. Member:: What was going on?


Alastair William Gillespie: If the Leader of the Opposition were serious about this matter he would have made it his business to find out how the terms of reference of that Royal Commission had been interpreted by the Royal Commissioner. He would have found that a public debate is being prepared right now by the
February 21, 1977

commissioner dealing with the important questions before the commission with respect to nuclear energy. But it seems to me the hon. gentleman is still going by the book; he reads the terms of reference and says this Royal Commission has no jurisdiction in this area at all. He is out of date again.


Charles Joseph Clark: I certainly would not suggest that the minister and his colleagues have adopted a Rip Van Winkle approach to politics; they are hoping right now that the Canadian people have slept through the last ten years.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: While we realize that their approach to federal-provincial relations is to dump federal responsibilities on to the provinces, we still ask the minister to tell the House why he is neglecting his responsibility as a minister in the national government to set up a national inquiry into a national question of national importance which is under national jurisdiction rather than trying to hide behind an initiative which has been taken by a government in a province.


Alastair William Gillespie: If the Leader of the Opposition is saying to me, to his colleagues and to the rest of the House that the people of Canada should not trust the actions of a Conservative government-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Alastair William Gillespie: -that the people of Canada should not trust a Royal Commission which has been set up by the Province of Ontario, a province which more than any other is committed to nuclear energy, if he is saying that, I think he ought to have a chat with Premier Davis.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: A supplementary to the minister with respect to his incredible lack of responsibility in this key area of nuclear development. In light of the fact that the request for such a public inquiry has been supported by Premier Campbell of Prince Edward Island, Premier Regan of Nova Scotia and by a number of members of parliament from all parties, and also in light of the fact that other provinces have taken varying positions with respect to the development of the nuclear option for Canada, I wonder whether the minister could tell us, given the establishment of further refineries at Port Hope and in Saskatoon, if either the companies concerned or his department are making plans with respect to these facilities to protect them from possible nuclear sabotage or terrorism? I think it is obvious the minister has not been exercising his jurisdiction effectively.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think the Atomic Energy Control Board has made clear on a number of occasions the measures they are taking to provide protection for the Canadian public.
Oral Questions


ATTEMPT BY ELDORADO TO STOP DRAMATIC PRESENTATION OF NUCLEAR QUESTION IN SASKATOON SCHOOLS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister indicate whether he has heard reports of, or taken action with respect to, a dramatic presentation on the nuclear question which has been taking place in the schools at Saskatoon and which has been protested by an official of Eldorado Nuclear, and that this official has written to the school board of Saskatoon instructing the school board to have this dramatic presentation stopped or else Eldorado Nuclear would take further action? Can the minister indicate under what authority the representative of Eldorado Nuclear has made this representation, whether the minister supports it, and what if any further action might be taken?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would be prepared to give me that information I would be prepared to look into it. He knows and his colleagues know that no decision has been taken to proceed with a refining operation in Saskatchewan close to Saskatoon. He also probably knows, if he has been following events, that no decision has been taken yet with respect to an additional refining and manufacturing facility close to Port Hope.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister indicating that he is not aware of the action that has been taken by an official of Eldorado Nuclear, and have instructions been communicated to this corporation in regard to terminating any kind of public discussion in the schools or elsewhere at Saskatoon regarding this important development?


Alastair William Gillespie: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the particular schoolroom activities that the hon. member is referring to, but I would think it very important that our school children across Canada be exposed to the arguments, both pro and con, respecting the use of nuclear energy.


PUBLIC BUILDINGS
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Public Works. Is the government ready to announce the details of the proposal of Robert Campeau, well known developer and Liberal supporter, for a new CBC headquarters at the Toronto Harbourfront, of which a model was to be revealed to the cabinet last week until the mayor of Toronto indicated that he refused to attend?

February 21, 1977
Oral Questions


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused by the question. I do not think the mayor was invited to attend any cabinet meeting at all. Certainly it is not normal practice. A model was not shown to the cabinet, Mr. Speaker. The subject was discussed and the details will be released to the House when a decision is taken.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the proposed project going through any tendering process, or is it to be similar to the lease-back arrangement from the government to the same Robert Campeau for the land known as Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I expect that if the project comes to fruition there would be some type of tendering arrangement whereby other interested builders or developers could make submissions as well.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Last week the minister indicated that he has been concerned about some of the powers provided under the Criminal Code and otherwise to investigative agencies and that he would specifically review the situation respecting applications by his department for writs of assistance. Can the minister now report to the House whether he is prepared to give tangible evidence of his expressed concern and will have introduced amendments to offending legislation providing for the issuance of such writs in the discretion of a judge on the basis of explicit criteria which ought to be carefully scrutinized by the court?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, it would be premature for me to give that assurance at the moment. I am doing what I undertook to do the other day, namely reviewing the internal arrangements of my own department and that of several others as to applications for writs of assistance and determining in what way the objections expressed by his Lordship, Mr. Justice Collier, can be met. 1 have also indicated that in connection with its studies of powers of search, seizure and arrest the Law Reform Commission is considering the question of writs of assistance, and I think I would like to wait until those considerations have been completed before indicating whether any amendments to the law will be required.


REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND POSSIBLE TERMINATION OF OUTSTANDING WRITS OF ASSISTANCE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that in the United Kingdom the court always has the alternative of granting or refusing writs of assistance, and in any case it is a very rare occurrence that such writs are

issued there, and for the most part they are issued for the purpose of recovering possession of or preserving chattels, whereas in Canada such writs are not considered as merely remedial, but rather are used to enforce criminal and quasicriminal legislation, will the minister immediately review the number and distribution of outstanding unlimited writs of assistance with a view to having existing writs voluntarily terminated except where justifiably and imminently required?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, both the Solicitor General and the Minister of National Revenue have been reviewing their internal arrangements by which writs of assistance are requested, and I am quite prepared-as I have already been doing-to ask my officials to make the same examination as to what internal procedures there are to assure that where writs of assistance are requested or granted they are surrounded by sufficient administrative checks to assure that they are not used capriciously or in an unjust way.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, in view of reports that some 4,212 searches were conducted last year under writs of assistance, that a total of 935 writs are currently held by RCMP officers and that 477 negative searches took place in 1976, can the minister verify that the incriminating evidence determined under the writs related to the statutes under which they were issued, and will the minister in any event examine the negative and other searches made to assess whether sufficient discretion is being exercised in the use of the writs, and will he report his findings to the House?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I have already undertaken to examine the situation. My colleagues could be more specific, but I would point out that of the number of writs of assistance used in customs, for example, there were some 70 million entries, and as I recall the figures-and my colleague could expand on them-there were seven writs of assistance used, which shows that they are used only after the most careful administrative screening as to whether they should in fact be used.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture.
In view of the exacerbation of manufacturing milk producers, especially in Quebec, as a result of the dairy policy announced by the minister last year and considering the disastrous weather experienced in Europe during the summer, can the minister say whether the 20 per cent lower quotas for manufacturing milk producers has proved satisfactory? In other words, can he say at this time of the year whether he or his government intend to alter that policy and consequently make payments to producers retroactive to April last?
February 21, 1977


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made many statements about the dairy policy for last year. The quota cut-back in the province of Quebec was decided upon by its own marketing board, and that board decided what percentage it should be. The administration of the quota is the responsibility of each provincial board, not mine, and if any debate took place in Quebec, I do not deserve 100 per cent of the blame because we did not have that problem in other parts of Canada. The quota was administered by the federal government in the same way with regard to each province. In so far as Europe is concerned their problem has been compounded, but in Canada the problem has been lessened because we have less surplus stocks on hand now than we did last year.
At the beginning of April when the new dairy year starts we will have about 100 million pounds of skim milk powder and about 10 million pounds of butter. Last year we had 300 million pounds of skimmed milk powder and 47 million pounds of surplus butter, so we will have a manageable surplus. The dairy program for this year will be announced soon, and again I think it will be one of the best in the world because our industrial milk producers are the best in the world and the best paid in the world.


SUGGESTION CONTROL OVER MILK BE TRANSFERRED TO PROVINCIAL JURISDICTION
Mr. Ren6 Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, the minister answers that the Quebec federation of milk producers is responsible for such conditions. I would like to point out that they accepted that reduction as a result of pressure by the minister and the Canadian Dairy Commission. This being so, considering the discrimination which seems to exist between Quebec and other provinces in that field, would the minister agree to let the production of manufacturing of raw milk come exclusively from now under the jurisdiction of the provinces?


Eugene Whelan: Generally the producers think that all production of milk, and especially industrial milk, that is distributed across provincial borders or that is exported, should be a federal responsibility. Some are even suggesting that all milk production should be under one authority so that any unfairness or inequity that exists could be eradicated in that fashion. I am saying that these are some of the views that have been expressed to me. Again, I say that the distribution of quotas within a province is under the jurisdiction of the provincial marketing boards. 1 do not distribute quotas to them. We asked for a 5 per cent increase in production for the dairy year and in the dairy year 1975-76 we ended up with approximately a 14 per cent increase, a surplus that was not asked for and for which there was no money or market.
Oral Questions


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Solicitor General the following question. In light of the tradition of the RCMP and its basic jurisdiction in dealing with one of Canada's major social problems, namely crime, is it the intention of the minister, and indeed of the government, to change that tradition and precedent by appointing an RCMP commissioner, when commissioner N. J. Nadon retires, from sources other than the training ranks of the RCMP who have learned by serving in one, some or all of the 38 subdivisions and 686 detachments of that force?


Stanley Ronald Basford: How about yourself?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I think that the press release issued in this respect by the Prime Minister about two weeks ago was very eloquent and clearly explained the situation. The Prime Minister established a committee which will recommend appointments and the committee's terms of reference are to find the best person to direct the RCMP. Obviously it goes without saying that persons already within the RCMP will be also considered. I should also add, Mr. Speaker, that notwithstanding what my hon. colleague has to say, it is not the first time that such a thing has happened. A committee was already established for the same purpose. To my knowledge, two previous commissioners came from outside the RCMP.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The Prime Minister might be eloquent, but I am not sure that he is not trying to destroy the RCMP.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Does the minister not consider that the person who replaces commissioner N. J. Nadon when he retires should be from the ranks of the RCMP who have received training from one, some or all of the 38 subdivisions and 686 detachments, particularly at a time when crime in Canada is escalating and Canadians are looking for more control over crime?


Francis Fox: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, there are excellent candidates within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who will be considered before this appointment is made. Instead of discrediting the RCMP, Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague should have a look on his side of the House and consider the rather foolish accusations which were recently made against the RCMP.

February 21, 1977
Oral Questions


MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE NO AGREEMENT WITH UNITED STATES ON CONSTRUCTION
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and it arises from reports emanating from what appear to be high sources in Washington that an agreement or understanding has been reached between Canada and the United States about the construction of a pipeline down the Mackenzie Valley. Can the minister assure the House and the country that no understanding of any sort, either oral or written, has been reached with the United States government at any level with respect to the construction of the pipeline at this time?


Alastair William Gillespie: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


James McPhail Gillies: Again I direct my question to the minister. Can he once again assure the House and country that no discussions will take place with the United States at any level with respect to the construction of a pipeline down the Mackenzie Valley until the report of the National Energy Board and the report of the Berger commission are made public?


Alastair William Gillespie: No, Mr. Speaker.


James McPhail Gillies: Why not?


Alastair William Gillespie: I would have thought that the hon. member would have known that for something as large and complicated as a pipeline system which has to be worked into a legislative time frame in the U.S. and be conditioned by our own legislative bodies and the National Energy Board, it would be prudent for Canadians at all levels, officials, ministers and, very likely, First ministers, presidents and prime ministers, to discuss some of the important implications of building or not building a pipeline.


James McPhail Gillies: My question was not about discussions but about decisions and commitments. That is what I am interested in knowing.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and it relates to a document just received which calls itself a preliminary report on Dome Canmar drilling in the Beaufort sea prepared by the Arctic Waters Oil and Gas Advisory Committee in three volumes, namely, the social and economic assessment, the technical assessment, and the envi-

ronmental assessment. In view of the fact that last week I was told by the minister that the same report-if this is the same report-was not due for some weeks, will the minister say exactly what status this preliminary report has and whether he will table it in the House so that parliament and the people of Canada may have the opportunity of examining this report and comparing it to the final report which presumably will follow?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I will check into that. I was told that the report would be issued only in one months' time. 1 do not know what the hon. member has in his hands. I will have to see it.


DATE OF PUBLICATION OF REGULATIONS GOVERNING EXPLORATION FOR GAS AND OIL IN THE NORTH
William Herbert Jarvis: In light of the fact that the report which, quite frankly, is very complimentary to Dome Canmar in terms of their operations last summer, clearly indicates that oil and gas development, if effectively planned and regulated, can work to the advantage of northern communities while having a minimal impact on the environment, will the minister tell the House when the proposed oil and gas regulations, which have been some seven years in gestation, will appear, and when they appear, will they go beyond the financial regulations mentioned in the May, 1976 statement and include a comprehensive environmental protection regime?


William Warren Allmand: With respect to the oil and gas regulations, I am reviewing them right now. As a matter of fact, I was working on them over the weekend and they should be out soon, but I cannot give the exact date. With respect to the report, or alleged report, referred to by the hon. member, I can only say that our final decision will be based on the information we have received at the end of the exercise, and as far as I am concerned, the exercise is not yet finished. I do not know to what exactly the hon. member was referring.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD POSSIBILITY OF MEASURES FOR POST-CONTROL PERIOD
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the Minister of Labour, but since he is absent, I shall direct it to his parliamentary secretary.
We know that the finance ministers have discussed the economic aspects of eventual measures preparing the end of the controls. So what is the Minister of Labour doing with respect to the effects of the post-control measures on labour agreements?
February 21, 1977


Mr. Jacques Olivier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: The Minister of Labour has had discussions with labour unions and some directors of companies, which is a first step. The conference which will take place tomorrow morning with all the provincial labour ministers is extremely important and will prepare the second step. We want to enter into a new era of progress and consultation between unions and all economic agents throughout Canada, to reduce the number of conflicts arising now between unions and employers.


HARBOURS
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question concerns the proposed Kitimat pipeline and since this matter comes under three ministers I will direct my question to the Minister of Transport, in view of the fact that I assume he is responsible for the marine facilities for transferring oil from the supertankers to the proposed pipeline. In view of the fact that the government of British Columbia has some constitutional authority, particularly with respect to these facilities which are above the high water mark, I should like to ask the minister if there have been any discussions with the government of British Columbia with respect to this matter and whether they have given their agreement to proceeding with the proposal in the event it is approved by the National Energy Board and the cabinet?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, there have been preliminary discussions with British Columbia government officials but certainly there is no question at this time of a blank cheque approval of any sort. Our position is that much further examination has to take place and an assessment made of the proposals themselves. This process is going on. I do not think anyone would want to make a judgment until all of that is in.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister if he considers it will be necessary to have the agreement of the government of British Columbia prior to such project being approved or does this government feel it can proceed without the approval and agreement of the province of British Columbia?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would hesitate to answer such an obviously hypothetical question because I could not envisage all the circumstances and the exact nature of the expression of opinion by that government. I can say we have been developing an extremely good working relationship with British Columbia and I would look forward to the two governments agreeing fully on whatever has to be done.
Oral Questions


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment regarding the hope he expressed the other day that there would be public hearings with respect to the proposal for the Kitimat pipeline. May I ask the minister now when such hearings will be held, in what areas they will be held and for an assurance that no final decision will be made until those public hearings have been held and all who wish to are given an opportunity to express their views?


Hon. Rom6o LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, what was a hope is a decision. The cabinet has decided public hearings should be held-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent):: -on the seaward or the terminal aspect of this project. The National Energy Board hearings obviously are another matter. I indicated when I was in British Columbia last week that the hearings would be held in that province and in more than one area of the province obviously. The exact type of hearings and their parameters are the subject of discussion between my colleagues and myself. We want to make sure that we have the best type of person to head these hearings. In fact, the gathering of technical data required before a hearing could take place takes us to roughly late April; that is the most optimistic prognosis. When all is said and done, public hearings on that issue could not be held before all the technical data and the assessments are accumulated and made available so that the discussion could be a well-informed one.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the continuing transportation problems in the province of Newfoundland, has the minister made a decision on the appointment of a commission to look into those problems and if so what are the terms of reference and the make-up of the commission?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we have confirmed that we are happy indeed to join in the appointment of a commission and we are still looking to finalize certain details in relation to it with the government of Newfoundland. We therefore have nothing to announce about the appointment of the commission at this time.

February 21, 1977
Oral Questions


HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION IN ATLANTIC PROVINCES-REQUEST FOR PROGRESS REPORT
Jack Marshall: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. On the broader question of transportation in the Atlantic region, would the minister indicate, as a result of his meeting with the Atlantic region transportation ministers, what progress is being made with regard to the great need for strengthening highway programs in the Atlantic region, particularly in view of the deterioration of the highways of the province of Newfoundland so necessary to economic development?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as the communique following our meeting indicated, there was agreement in principle with the general idea that certain moneys which otherwise would have been spent in the Atlantic region in relation to certain programs-and where it was agreed that those moneys were not particularly serving their original purposes of promoting development-that they would be diverted toward such matters as a highway strengthening program. That agreement in principle will be worked out in detail in the next weeks in terms of concrete actions and proposals and programs.


CITIZENSHIP
Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Secretary of State but in his absence I will address it to the parliamentary secretary. Following the wide publicity given to the proclamation of the new Citizenship Act, large numbers of persons came to make applications under the new act at the citizenship court in Simcoe, Ontario, only to find that no application forms were available. Does this delay by the Department of Secretary of State in forwarding proper forms indicate a phasing out of these so-called subcourts?


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of the Secretary of State has been getting ready for a long time to face a possible increase in the number of applications. I understand that no special long-term backlog is supposed to exist with the plans we have. I did not quite get the last part of the question regarding a possible phaseout of a subcourt. I have never heard of anything of that nature.


William David Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the subcourt acts in conjunction with the larger citizenship court, such as those in the cities of Hamilton and Brantford, for example. This happened in Simcoe which is under them, so to speak. Will the minister undertake a review of the excellent work being done by this type of court, presided over by county court judges, with a view to providing sufficient clerical staff at least on a part-time basis?


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, additional staff has been trained and should remain available in the location mentioned by the hon. member.


HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs involves polychloride and polystyrene plastics. The former minister informed the House on two or three occasions that we could expect a Firm set of regulations involving these fire hazard plastics which police chiefs across Canada and Department of Public Works officials have said are very, very hazardous. Can the minister inform the House why he has chosen to take the voluntary compliance route as opposed to a strict set of regulations, and is he satisfied that the plastic companies now involved are voluntarily complying with these standards to the extent they would if there were a serious set of regulations for these highly dangerous and inflammable substances which can cause death and destruction?
Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to be able to answer the hon. member in an informed way but I am afraid I am going to have to check on this unless he can give me more details.


William Heward Grafftey: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister's department is one concerned with many details and this is the fifth successive time the minister has answered me in such a way. This is not a detailed problem, it is a very serious problem that the minister has been informed of on many occasions. Can he tell the House why he has told me and the industries that instead or regulations they are going to have voluntary compliances?


Mr. Abbott:: Mr. Speaker, I can answer the hon. member in accordance with the material I have but I thought he could raise a more specific point. The department has been working with the Canadian plastics industry to develop labelling procedures and all the other procedures that will warn people that where there is foam insulation it should be covered with an adequate thermal barrier such as half inch plastic board. I am reading this very useful resume. I should like to be able to bring to the hon. member a precise answer to his question which is whether we can involve voluntary procedures or regulations. At this stage, I cannot give him an answer.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister been able to reply to the brief on feed freight assistance for British Columbia, presented to him by the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we met with the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture and discussed that item. The question of feed freight assistance is being considered. The Canadian Livestock Feed Board should be submitting a formal report to me shortly. It may be in my office now-I have not checked in the last couple of days.


SEARCH AND RESCUE
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the minister's statement, as reported in Hansard, page 3138, to the effect that the program for Canadian coastguard search and rescue facilities will be put in place, will the minister advise when our empty shipyards will be given the opportunity to build the three 232-foot cutters and the fourteen 65-foot rescue vessels which were announced during the May, 1976 hearings in Vancouver?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the particular vessels are no longer involved in exactly that way in the program. The decisions to build particular vessels will be taken in due course. At the moment, as I indicated to the hon. member, we have discovered that a good deal of additional search and rescue time can be provided by giving that task to existing government vessels and having them in operation much longer hours than hitherto. That permits them to accommodate both search and rescue and other tasks, such as fishery tasks and surveillance, which they have to do. This has meant that we have been able to provide a good deal more search and rescue capability, with a maximum advantage for every taxpayer dollar spent.


Mr. Brisco:: You mean, every American tax dollar.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister would explain his answer as reported on page 3138 of Hansard. Answering my question, he said that the program which was announced in May, 1976 at the transport committee hearings in Vancouver would be put into place. I did not understand his answer today.
Oral Questions


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I said that the program which the government has announced is to be put into place and that that will involve the addition of vessels, as they are required and as they were envisaged in the course of the program. The absence of immediate construction of all vessels must be considered in the light of a good deal of additional vessel time being available as a result of the longer-hour tasking of existing vessels.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Frank Maine (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. In his absence, may I direct it to the parliamentary secretary? It has been brought to my attention that the CBC's French network in Quebec will not be broadcasting the Prime Minister's address to the joint session of the United States Senate and Congress tomorrow.


Mr. Paproski:: Too bad.


Francis William (Frank) Maine: Will the Secretary of State inquire of the CBC why a news item of such national and international importance does not merit the attention of Canadian citizens in the province of Quebec?


Jacques Guilbault: I was not aware of the issue raised by the hon. member, but I shall make inquiries of the CBC as to the validity of this rumour.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Transport? Earlier in the question period he referred to the pending appointment of a royal commission for the province of Newfoundland which is to look into CN operations in that province. Has the minister held discussions with the president of Canadian National, to determine if there is an undertaking by CN to maintain its level of services during the course of this inquiry and if there is a further undertaking to the effect that there will be no more lay-offs until the commission of inquiry reports?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make it clear that we are talking about a commission which will look into transportation matters generally, and not look simply into matters relating to Canadian

February 21, 1977
Oral Questions
National. The question of Canadian National's activities in Newfoundland during the period of the existence of the commission has been very much a matter of discussion in connection with its development. I expect to have an expression indicating the position which Canadian National will take, an expression which I think will be of benefit to the atmosphere surrounding the commission's deliberations.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. Since Captain Symes of the trawler Cape John is publicly reported as saying that Canada has had no surveillance capability on Hamilton Bank since the beginning of this year other than aircraft on a fine day-and fine days have been few and far between-and since this has resulted in some 58 foreign trawlers using small mesh trawl, grinding up thousands of small fish into fish meal, will the minister inform the House if Canada intends to assume control of its fisheries resources within the 200-mile zone and, if so, when will the minister begin adequate ship surveillance in the north and the Gulf of St. Lawrence, surveillance which depends on the use of ship-based inspection officers?


Fabien Roy: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would not agree with the statement attributed to the captain whom the hon. member quoted. I saw that press article during the weekend but have not had a chance to check those allegations. Frankly, I doubt some of the assertions in the article but will not quibble before I have checked the facts. I will give the hon. member full information.


STUDY OF FISH STOCKS IN GULF OF ST. LAWRENCE-REQUEST FOR PROGRESS REPORT
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister has promised the so-called Gulf of St. Lawrence project which was to provide figures on the interdependence of fish stocks, distribution of stocks at any given time as well as where they spawn and when, but the project was never undertaken. Since this is the type of information the government and industry require before quotas on any species can be allocated, when does the minister plan to proceed with his promised Gulf of St. Lawrence project and stop scuttling his own management scheme?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, the Gulf of St. Lawrence is one of the best fishing areas known to us, but there is still some research to do, as there is in every other fishery of this country. We are trying to establish the priorities where they belong. We need proper knowledge based on proper research in order to manage our resources. We have information about the redfish fishery

of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, which is in most serious danger. We have full information and have been in possession of it since 1973. At that time we indicated to the industry that by the end of 1975 we would be running into serious trouble in the Gulf of St. Lawrence with respect to redfish.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Since the Department of Agriculture has been without a deputy minister for some two months, can the minister say when we can expect an appointment to this important position?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we have some very good assistant deputy ministers. One of them, Mr. Jarvis, is acting deputy minister and, as well, we have a very good Minister of Agriculture.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frank Fletcher Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is addressed to the Acting Prime Minister, can the Acting Prime Minister give some assurance that the new deputy minister of agriculture will at least be familiar with agriculture, so that we do not repeat the sort of previous unfortunate appointment.


An hon. Member:: How about Beryl Plumptre?


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Privy Council. I am sure all of us in this House regret the illness of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, an illness which is responsible for his continuing absence. We hope that his health will soon be fully restored. In the meantime some pressing questions have to be dealt with, and I should like to address one of them to the government House leader today. Since the rate of the 100 per cent war disability pension which was established in 1972 in relation to the composite of five public service groups has now fallen behind that composite rate by more than $500 a year, will the government look into this matter and bring in legislation to close the gap, in fairness to our disabled war veterans?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate on behalf of the Minister of Veterans Affairs the comments the member made about the minister, especially his hope for a quick recovery. If I may answer the point about the relationship of the disability pension to the
February 21, 1977

composite index, I will be happy to look into the question and see what can be done.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Since the majority of problems in our penitentiary system have been caused by the appointment of people with no previous service, will the minister assure the House that the new commissioner of the RCMP will be appointed from within that service?
[ Translation\


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, 1 have already replied to the questions of the hon. member's colleague. I repeat, the press release of the Prime Minister replies to questions such as these and I have nothing to add to the replies I made to his colleague a few minutes ago.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that of the hon. member who asked about dairy policy. I could direct it to the Minister of Finance but will direct it to the Minister of Agriculture, in the hope he has provided some input with respect to this policy. Since agriculture is an important component in the Tokyo round of talks now being held in Geneva in connection with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, will the minister indicate what position with respect to dairy policy he has advocated to our officials when they talk with officials of other countries during the GATT round of negotiations?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, it would not be proper for me to say exactly what instructions our people have been given. However, they are taking an active part. After having met with the provincial people to discuss the position we should take, they will then be discussing along this plain.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is very simple. Will Canada's position be to advocate more control over imports of dairy products into Canada or to not advocate greater control over imports of dairy products into Canada?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, our program will not be changed very much. Never in our history has there been more control
Business of the House
over dairy products than since we instigated the Canadian Dairy Commission. We will not be changing that attitude.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if I might ask the government House leader to let us know what he has in mind for tomorrow and subsequent days as far as government business is concerned.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, hopefully we will complete second reading of the fiscal relations bill today. Tomorrow we will start with the National Transportation Act amendments. Wednesday has been designated as an allotted day.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, in the event that we do not complete Bill C-37, the federal-provincial fiscal bill-and that is a very distinct possibility-will the government's order of business change? Will the government House leader address himself to that question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we will carry on with that bill tomorrow, in the unlikely event it does not pass today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the point of order that has just been raised, may I ask a supplementary question? If we do finish the item that is before us today, and have to take something else tomorrow, is it not a fact there was some discussion as to whether we would take Bill C-33, the National Transportation Act, or Bill C-17 having to do with Air Canada? The last word I had was that we would proceed with the Air Canada bill.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I always relate my decision to call the Air Canada bill to some clear understanding as to how much time it will take. If we had some understanding that the Air Canada bill could pass relatively quickly, I would be ready to call it before the National Transportation Act. However, if that is not the case, I would give a higher priority to getting a start on the National Transportation Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It would be better to call the human rights bill.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: With regard to the government House leader's announcement concerning the possibility of the National Transportation Act being debated as early as tomorrow, may I ask whether the House leader has made arrangements with the Minister of Transport to table, before the debate begins on second reading, the proposed amendments that apparently were agreed to by the Minister of Transport and the four Atlantic governments a couple of weeks ago so that there can be a full understanding of the nature of these amendments to the National Transportation Act when we have the second reading debate?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not had any such consultations up to the present time.

February 21, 1977
Estimates



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Romeo LeBIanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-38, to amend the Fisheries Act and to amend the Criminal Code in consequence thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motion:
February 18-The President of the Privy Council-That the Standing Committee on Agriculture inquire into the marketing of beef and veal and for that purpose that it review the report of the "Commission of Inquiry into the Marketing of Beef and Veal, 1976".
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 21, this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the House.


ESTIMATES
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 59(1), I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald):
That the estimates of sums required for the service of Canada for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1978, be referred to the several Standing Committees of the House, as follows-
A copy of the detailed outline of the estimates and their destination has been circulated. It is, I believe, identical to the motion adopted last session. I would, therefore, beg the indulgence of the House to be spared reading this long list.


Mr. Speaker:: If it is correct, the copies have been distributed to all the parties. If there is no objection, rather than reading-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, we have the assurance of the House leader that the motion is in the traditional form. If not, will he point out to us at this time any significant departures?
I believe that would be satisfactory.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The motion referred to is as follows.]
That the estimates of sums required for the service of Canada for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1978, be referred to the several standing committees of the House, as follows:
To the Standing Committee on Agriculture Agriculture votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20, 25, L30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60 and 65 To the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts Communications votes 1, 5 and 10
Secretary of State votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, L80, 85, 90, 95 and 100
To the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence External Affairs votes 1,5, 10, LI5, 20, 25, 30, L35, 40 and 45 National Defence votes I, 5, 10 and 15 To the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs Finance votes 1, 5, L10, 15, 20, 25, 35 and 40
Industry, Trade and Commerce votes 1,5, 10, 15, L20, L25, L30, L35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65 and 70 National Revenue votes I, 5 and 10 Privy Council vote 20
To the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry Environment votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 To the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs Consumer and Corporate Affairs votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 National Health and Welfare votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60 and 65
Urban Affairs votes 1, 5, 10, L15, L20, 25, 30 and L35 To the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development Indian Affairs and Northern Development votes 1, 5, 10, LI5, L20, 25, 30, 35, L40, L45, L50, L55, 60, 65, 70 and L75 To the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs Justice votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 Solicitor General votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 To the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration Labour votes 1 and 5
Manpower and Immigration votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 To the Standing Committee on Management and Members Services Parliament votes 5 and 10
To the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates Finance vote 30
Governor General and Lieutenant Governors vote 1 Parliament vote 1
Privy Council votes 1,5, 15 and 25
Science and Technology votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40 Secretary of State vote 105 Supply and Services votes 1, 5, L10, 15, 20 and 25 Treasury Board votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 To the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Work Energy, Mines and Resources votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20, L25, 30, 35, 40, 45, L50, L55, L60, L65, L70 and 75 Public Works votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40 To the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections Privy Council vote 10
To the Standing Committee on Regional Development Regional Economic Expansion votes 1, 5, 10, LI5, L20, 25 and 30 To the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications Post Office votes 1 and 5
February 21, 1977

Transport votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, L35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, L70. L75, 80,85,90,95, 100. LI05, 110, 115 and 120 To the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs Veterans Affairs votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45 and 50


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 838, 1005, 1170, 1248, 1414, 1496, 1503, 1524, 1610 and 1686.


Mr. Horner: 1.	What amount is being spent to improve the facilities at Malton Airport?
2.	What is the cost for each specific improvement?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. $115,503,000, Total estimated cost.
2.	Land developments and improvements Phase I, $1,251,000; Airfield, $1,425,000; Terminal No. 1 Phase I, $15,484,000; Terminal No. 2 Stage III, Phase I, $35,063,000; Utilities Phase I, $6,993,00; Roads and Parking Phase I, $44,766,000; Unapplied common construction costs, $2,146,000; Recoverable capital costs Phase I, $2,859,000; Energy Recovery System $3,980,000; Instal key card door control system, $400,000; Remedial repairs to parking structure, $525,000; Improve security facilities $611,000; Total $115,503,000.


Mr. Howie: What persons can appeal the designation of a position in the Public Service as bilingual and when such a position is vacant, can anyone appeal?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of Treasury Board):: The
Treasury Board secretariat is responsible for the designation of positions as bilingual, in co-operation with representatives of departments and agencies for which the Treasury Board is the employer, and in consultation with representatives of the bargaining agents where appropriate. Unilingual incumbents of positions designated bilingual may elect to become bilingual and undertake language training, or transfer to another job having the same salary maximum, or, if they were to decline such a transfer, to remain in their positions even though designated as bilingual. With regard to vacant positions, however, according to section 21 of the Public Service Employment Act, an appeal can be put forward where there is a staffing action for a position but only by persons directly affected by the appointment. No other specific reason is set out by the act.
Order Paper Questions MOUNTAIN CLIMBING IN NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Yewchuk: Are any conditions placed on mountain or rock climbing activities in the (a) Kluane (b) Nahanni (c) Yoho (d) Banff (e) Jasper (f) Waterton (g) Auyuittuq (h) Forillon National Park and, if so, what are they?


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: (a) to (f)
Section 23 of the National Parks General Regulations stipulates that climbers must check in and out with the park warden service when attempting a climb of any difficulty, (g) Auyuittuq National Park-The conditions imposed are as follows: (i) All climbers must be registered; visitors must sign in, indicate their itinerary, the length of time anticipated and so on. (2) During the summer, two guards are kept on duty at Pangnirtung Pass to check on comings and goings of visitors and to provide aid and assistance if necessary. (3) All equipment is inspected, (h) Forillon National Park-There are no mountain or rock climbing activities here because of the poor quality of rock.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Has a return on the money invested by Canadian National Railways in the CAST group of companies been realized and, if so, in each case, has the return been paid to CN and (a) if so, in what form (b) if not, for what reason?
2.	What has been the percentage return on investment in each company and what has been the total dollar amount (a) earned (b) paid to CN?
3.	Has the money earned been reinvested in the CAST group and, if so, has this been approved by the (a) CN Board of Directors (b) President of CN (c) Cabinet?
4.	Has the CN equity in the CAST group been used to finance any new ventures by the CAST group and (a) if so, what is the nature of such ventures (b) if not, are any such ventures contemplated in the immediate future and what is their nature?
5.	Can or does the CN intend to withdraw its money from the CAST group in the foreseeable future and, if not, for what reason?
6.	For each CAST company, by office and/or title, what are the names of the CN personnel who hold offices?
7.	What is the rationale for the investment of CN money in the CAST group?
8.	Were CN personnel in their capacity as officers/directors of CAST companies involved in the recent decision of the CAST group to commence a container service between Montreal and Manchester/Liverpool?
9.	Did CN personnel involved in this decision concur with this decision and, if so, are they aware of the potential competitive damage which may be done to other carriers serving the Canada/UK trade?


Otto Emil Lang: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. (a) and (b) CN, as a shareholder of CAST, has not received, to date, a direct return on its investment, since no dividend has been declared in respect to profits earned by CAST in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1976. However, indirect benefits have accrued to CN from the enhancement of its equity and from the inland handling of CAST traffic.
2.	(a) and (b) The direct percentage return on investment received by CN is nil.
3.	(a), (b) and (c) No additional investment in the CAST group of companies has been made by CN.

February 21, 1977
Order Paper Questions
4.	(a) and (b) Funds received from CN's purchase of equity in the CAST group were used to finance, in part, a special portfolio investment by that group in shares of Manchester Liners Limited and of Furness, Withy and Company, Limited.
5.	CN does not have such a right or intention.
6.	No CN personnel holds an office in any company within the CAST group. Mr. R. A. Bandeen, President of CN, representing CN shareholdings in CAST, is a director of Intercast, S.A. and of Eurocanadian Shipholdings Limited.
7.	CN regards its equity in the CAST group as being a prudent financial investment and as one made in an organization that engages in business activities which are related to and capable of benefiting the conduct of CN's own undertaking.
8 and 9. As director, Mr. R. A. Bandeen concurred in a decision of CAST directors approving the proposed addition of Liverpool as a port of call to the Transatlantic container services offered by CAST. The recommendation was considered from the viewpoints of a director, as referred to in paragraph 6, and as affording to the public the option of an additional competitive shipping service.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was any French wine recently transported free of charge from France to Canada by Air Canada and, if so (a) what was the date, point of origin and departure (b) who owned the goods involved (c) what is the name and address of those to whom it was shipped (d) what would have been the cost had Air Canada charged for the shipment?
2.	Have there been other occasions since January 1, 1972 when Air Canada on any of its flights carried freight or express items free of charge and, if so, in each case (a) what was the date, point of origin and destination (b) what was the nature of the goods involved and the estimated value (c) what would have been the cost if Air Canada had charged for the shipment (d) who owned the goods involved and what is the name and address of those to whom they were shipped (e) what is the total value of all goods shipped free by Air Canada since January 1, 1972?


Otto Emil Lang: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. Yes. For promotional purposes in accordance with company and Canadian Transport Commission regulations, a) November 16, 1976. Paris, France, (b) and c) English-Gunn Limited, 87 Front Street East, Toronto, Canada M5E 1B8 d) $812.50.
2. Air Canada constantly seeks to promote and develop the movement of people and commodities. In order to do so, the airline sometimes provides a certain amount of free transportation, drawn from a closely controlled allotment and in accordance with Canadian Transportation Commission regulations. In addition, Air Canada frequently provides assistance during times of national or international disasters, such as shipping emergency medical and other supplies to earthquake victims in Guatemala and airlifting supplies of processed food to Bangladesh. Also, the airline assists such organizations as the Red Cross and the Canadian Cancer Society on a continuing basis. However, a list of all occasions since January 1, 1972, that Air Canada shipped goods free of charge is not easily available and it would take an inordinate amount of clerical time and
cost to search for and obtain this and other requested information.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	In each of the past five years, how much has been granted to businesses through the Industrial Postdoctorate Fellowship Programme towards the salary of newly hired Ph.Ds.?
2.	Is such assistance restricted to the hiring of Canadian citizens?
3.	Is such assistance available to foreign controlled corporations?
4.	Is there any monitoring programme of those hired with subsidy to establish the length of time employed by the company receiving the subsidy?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: In so far as th .tional Research Council of Canada is concerned, the	,s as follows: 1. 1971-72,
$195,000; 1972-73, $418.0	->
74, $687,000; 1974-75,
$769,000; 1975-76, $771
2.	Canadian citizens or landed immigrants. Landed immigrants must have received their doctorate degree from a Canadian University.
3.	Yes, companies operating in Canada.
4.	Yes, monthly payments are made upon receipt of invoices from the company.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	Has CBC applied to CRTC under the accelerated coverage plan to install English language television transmitters designed to provide service to areas around Cow Head, Port Saunders, Hawkes Bay, Portland Creek and Trout River, Newfoundland and, if so, on what date are public hearings scheduled?
2.	On what date will action be taken for (a) acquisition of land (b) site clearing, road development (c) power line construction, etc. (d) erection of buildings (e) installation of mechanical equipment (f) installation of technical equipment (g) erection of towers (h) erection of antennae (i) erection of transmission lines (j) transmitter equipment, list and ancillary equipment?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. Applications for installations in the Cow Head and Trout River areas were submitted to the CRTC in January 1977. It is expected that applications for installations in the Port Saunders/ Hawkes Bay and Portland Creek areas will be submitted in February 1977. No CRTC hearings have yet been scheduled for the Cow Head and Trout River applications.
2. (a) Negotiations are now proceeding to obtain options on the properties selected as transmitter sites; (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (0. (j). The necessary work will proceed as quickly as possible, subject to CRTC approval, weather conditions and availability of material and equipment.

February 21, 1977


Mr. Laprise: How many first applications have been submitted to the Unemployment Insurance Commission for the fiscal years (a) 1972-73 (b) 1973-74 (c) 1974-75?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of Manpower an-1 Immigration):: (a) 2,024,050; (b) 1,983,034; (c) 2,262,213.


Mr. Beatty: Is the author of the article entitled "Novel Fish Escalator Proves Successful" published in the January, 1977 issue of the Department of Supply and Services' R and D Bulletin still in the department's employ and, if so (a) is a future article planned to elaborate wAn? quotation attributed to the president of the company marketing the fish Judder in which he states that it is being marketed in the United States becauser". it has tremendous potential there with so many rivers being damned' 1l >.vas the author able to determine from his research by whom and for wh; t son so many rivers are "being damned"?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: See Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, 4th Edition, Citation 171 (a) and (b).


Mr. Neil: Has the Minister of Transport requested CN and CP rail to implement measures in Saskatchewan to reduce backhauls and improve car utilization similar to Alberta, as stated in his news release of December 31, 1976?


Otto Emil Lang: Some grain originating at points in Saskatchewan is already affected by the reciprocal agreement and is thus benefiting from more direct routing. I have not formally requested the railways to implement measures to reduce backhauls although both CN and CP know my feelings on the subject. The Canadian Transport Commission has been acting as an intermediary with the railways and I have requested the CTC to look at extending the concept wherever applicable in the prairies. 1 have specifically requested the CTC to look at improving grain flows to Churchill. Such an improvement would help to reduce unnecessary car mileage, particularly in Saskatchewan.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred questions Nos. 1,461 and 1,462? I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton): 1.	Will additional measures be taken this winter to reduce the possibility of spring flooding from the Rideau River and, if so, what are they?
2.	Did the Rideau Canal Authority make a verbal commitment to lower the water level an additional two feet between freshet and, if so, on what date will it do so?
3.	In the section of the River from Burritts Rapids to Long Island is the River and the Rideau Canal the same and, if so, is it Parks Canada's view that the responsibility for ice jam clearance is a municipal matter only?
4.	Has Parks Canada sought a legal opinion on jurisdiction in this area and, if so, with what result?


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows: 1. Yes. The reach above Long Island is being closely monitored since February 1. This involves reading additional water gauges at Beckett's Landing and Kars Bridge to better predict the onset of the spring freshet. Location and behavior of any ice jams that may occur will be observed. An independent consulting company has been retained by Parks Canada, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, to refine runoff indicators and dam operating procedures. This work will involve additional snow surveys.
2.	Yes. This will be done when indicated by runoff conditions on the basis of the hydrological study now underway.
3.	(a) yes, (b) yes, but Parks Canada would assist in this work by control of water levels and flows.
4.	Yes. The bed of the river is considered vested in Canada by the Rideau Canal Act of 1827, the BN A Act of 1867 et al.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton): With reference to the answer to Question No. 511, Part 5(c), at what points in this stretch of the River is the natural configuration a problem?


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, the flat terrain, the number of sharp bends and the several narrow sections are natural restrictions to river flow. An example is the Narrows near Manotick Marina.

February 21, 1977
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, February 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) 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.
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us is entitled the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977. But we should not be deceived by that description. For the bill which bears this convoluted label-a label which surely could only capture the imagination of actuaries and chartered accountants-in reality constitutes the latest in a series of major fiscal overhauls to our federal system. Legislation of such importance and such complexity as Bill C-37, coming as it does at this critical time in our nation's history, demands of each of us the most careful and responsible analysis. In so doing, we should recognize the interdependence of all parts of this bill when discussing its over-all impact.
What is not useful at this time is a distorted interpretation of the bill for partisan purposes, twisting it out of shape to demonstrate either that it is a panacea for the ills of confederation, or that it is an unmitigated disaster. We were treated to that kind of interpretation of the arrangements before us by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) immediately following the first ministers' conference last December. We were treated to the same kind of irresponsible analysis by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) last Friday when he chose to ignore everything in the bill but the impact of the transfer of tax points to the provinces. Such selectivity in the reading of this legislation is hardly conducive to the strengthening of federalism, particularly at a time when partisan considerations must be subordinate to the cause of national unity.
As I said, this bill is an important one. We should give it the same attention that we would expect to give to a package of constitutional amendments or the major policies enunciated by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) in his budget. The measures incorporated in this bill are an integral part of the framework under which Canada will be governed in the next five years. Moreover, in dollar terms we are talking about a fiscal transfer to the provinces during the next fiscal year in

excess of $8 billion, or, to put it another way, a sum roughly equal to the 1965 federal budget.
What is even more important than the breathtaking sums of money involved is the fact that this bill represents federalism at work. It is a product of some ten months of difficult and often acrimonious negotiations between the federal government and the provincial governments. One would have wished that less acrimony had developed. As I will later explain, I am convinced that much of it was needless. It could have been avoided by a more astute and sensitive approach on the part of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. But putting that aside for a moment, the bill does represent a consensus which all parties involved in the negotiations concluded they could live with. It does continue to provide funding for four vital national programs: revenue equalization, hospital insurance, medicare, and post-secondary education. It preserves our national taxation system. It continues the representative tax approach to revenue equalization and it embodies elements of the equalization principle in its provisions for financing so-called established programs. These features will commend it to all fair-minded Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, while I have expressed in this chamber on earlier occasions my concern about the erosion of parliament's power through the proliferation of federal-provincial conferences, nevertheless I recognize the principle that what a federal-provincial conference has joined together, parliament should not capriciously rend asunder. We believe that Bill C-37 contains sufficient merit to enable that principle to be applied to it.
Certainly, when I recall the original proposals of the Minister of Finance to his provincial colleagues last April, I am only too well aware that the outcome could have been much worse. Indeed, had the minister stuck to the guns he unveiled in that speech, had he insisted on doing away with the representative tax system and destroying the whole concept of revenue equalization by tying it to the growth of the GNP, we would have had before us today a settlement arbitrarily imposed on the provinces, rather than one they were able to accept with a greater or lesser degree of reluctance.
My colleagues and I do have reservations about the bill. We see in it errors both of commission and omission, and we want to make it very clear at the outset that if we find injustices and inequities arising from this agreement-as could well be the case-we fully reserve the right to enter into new negotiations with the provinces as provided for in the bill. This legislation involves elements of experimentation: elements which may work hardships or prove to be impractical. Since that possibility exists, a significant factor in our decision to support this bill is the fact that it is limited to a term of five years.
Having said that, let me spell out the reservations that we have as to the substance of the bill. We are concerned that the projections as to what the provinces will receive from the tax points transfer and in cash payments under the established programs financing arrangements are based on a single set of arbitrary assumptions about the rates of inflation, real economic growth and tax yields during the next five years. If a
February 21, 1977

new inflationary spiral, a cyclical boom, or continued recession should be our lot during those years, the fiscal resources available to the provinces could be dramatically greater or less than what was anticipated. Such fluctuations could make the results of these financial arrangements either equitable or inequitable. For that reason, alternative projections based on a wide range of possible economic trends should have been available for consideration during the bargaining. Had that occurred, a more informed judgment could have been made by all concerned as to the impact of the arrangements in economic circumstances other than the reasonably stable one used in compiling the single projection the minister felt obliged to provide to the provinces.
One of the main purposes of the newly established programs financing arrangements is to give the provinces more flexibility by substituting a block grant of tax points and cash payments for the previous cost-sharing arrangements which made federal funds available only for specified items of expenditures. But the established programs financing arrangements do not stand alone; they are part of a total package. The flexibility these arrangements promised is restricted by a number of factors pertaining to the bill. It is restricted, first of all, by the federal government's withdrawal from the revenue guarantee program; a withdrawal for which only partial compensation is provided to the provinces. The net result of that step will be a reduction of approximately $450 million in unconditional grants available to the provinces this year.
I know it is the contention of hon. members opposite that the revenue guarantee was never intended to go beyond the present fiscal year. But anyone who has taken the time to look into the subject with a reasonable degree of objectivity knows that the provinces were led to believe that the revenue guarantee program would continue in some form. That assurance was given them by the former minister of finance who is now waiting in some board room for the call to salvage the wreck of the Liberal party. The value of the revenue guarantee program to the provinces was further diminished by an arbitrary change in the method of calculating the payments.
Now, after reneging on their implied commitment to the provinces and arbitrarily changing the rules of the commitment to which they were legally bound, hon. members on your right, Mr. Speaker, came forward last week and tried to pass off this dubious conduct as part of their restraint program. Moreover, not content with that particular shell-game, they tried to represent tax point transfers to the provinces, which will replace part of the existing cash payments under the new scheme of the established programs financing, as yet another cut in government spending.
I cannot understand, when a real effort has been made in some areas genuinely to restrain government spending, why the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) would needlessly cast doubt on the credibility of his accomplishment by making the ludicrous claim that these bookkeeping adjustments represent real belt-tightening. In this instance, as in so
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements many others, the government seems determined to be its own worst enemy.
As 1 have said, the withdrawal of the revenue guarantee payments imposed considerable restrictions on provincial flexibility. The ability of the provinces to reorder priorities while maintaining adequate levels of services is further constrained by the fact that the cash portion of the fiscal transfer for established programs will escalate at a rate equal to the growth in per capital gross national product. The principle that the proportion of GNP spent on these programs should remain constant has a degree of merit, but this method of implementing it has the potential, 1 suggest, in a prolonged period of lean economic growth, of putting considerable pressure on the provinces to cut back on services, or, at best, freeze them at unacceptably low levels. There is scope, of course, for savings by substituting low-cost alternatives for expensive services such as acute hospital care. But that scope is limited. Capable management of the national economy would be the most effective means to deal with that problem, but that kind of management is something we have notably lacked under this administration, particularly since the last election.
That is why I point this out as a danger area which may have to be dealt with by renegotiation in order to ensure that the flexibility acquired in theory is rendered practicable by adequate financing. These danger areas are very real. In December, the Prime Minister, by ignoring the impact of the withdrawal of the revenue guarantee payments, tried to create the impression that the over-all agreement was more than generous to the provinces. On Friday, instead of addressing himself to the real problems of the bill the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby attempted to show that it was a disaster for the poorer provinces by ignoring the mitigating effects of the levelling up and transitional cash payments under the established programs financing arrangements-payments that will counteract the advantage to the richer provinces of the tax transfer. Both the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby were, I suggest, less than honest in their presentations.
There is another danger inherent in this bill which 1 draw to the attention of the House. It is most unclear from the legislation what sort of conditions are going to be imposed on the provinces if they are to receive their cash grants. I note that there are going to be agreements under the hospital insurance act and the medicare act similar to those now in effect, but there is, nonetheless, sufficient latitude in the new arrangements that could eventually result in a situation where services would deteriorate in some parts of the country. At committee stage we shall be insisting on clarification of these conditions and on some guarantee from the federal government that the national standards already attained will continue.
Let me digress for a moment, Mr. Speaker, to make the comment that the GNP escalator seems to me to be a somewhat gratuitous piece of paternalism on the part of the federal government, especially in light of the fact that since 1971 federal transfers to the provinces have declined, as a percent-
80008-67'/2

February 21, 1977
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
age of federal expenditures, from 28.1 to 25.1, and as a percentage of the GNP from 4.5 to 4.4. During the same period, federal expenditures, exclusive of transfer payments to the provinces, have increased from 13.4 to 16.2 per cent of the gross national product.
I take these figures from the third quarter 1976 national income and expenditure accounts published this month by Statistics Canada-a source, I believe, that will be recognized by the government as authoritative. So let us hear no more of the pretence enunciated by the Minister of Finance last April that this provision-the GNP escalator or cash payments- was needed to check the extravagances of the provinces. Extravagant they may have been in the past in the administration of these programs, but as these figures indicate, since 1971 the provinces have made a real effort to bring these programs under control, an effort that those on the front benches opposite would have done well to imitate in their areas of responsibility.
However, if the federal government is in a mood to exercise leadership, may I suggest to them that they missed an opportunity to do so in a positive and constructive way. The opportunity to which I refer was the failure to explore with the provinces the possibility of an interprovincial agreement to ensure unimpeded mobility between provinces for students seeking post-secondary education. Such portability has always been-and, I am pleased to see, will continue to be-a feature of the hospital insurance and medicare programs. I believe it would be a sound contribution to national unity if the provinces could be brought together to work out an agreement which would prohibit discrimination of any kind either in admission or in fees by universities to Canadian students from any province. The negotiation of the arrangements we have before us provided an excellent opportunity which was allowed to slip by.
But beyond these defects in what the government is proposing, 1 take very serious exception to the way that this agreement was worked out with the provinces. What was involved in the negotiations that took place? Supposedly, the more effective financing and administration of four vital national programs. That was, and is, a matter of common interest to the federal government and the provincial governments. Yet from the outset the Minister of Finance seemed to feel he had to bludgeon his way through to a settlement. He began the process last April by virtually threatening to impose a settlement on his provincial colleagues with respect to equalization and the revenue guarantee which he knew was patently unacceptable to them.
The predictable effect of this hostile approach was to make the provinces equally adamant concerning their interests. Indeed, by the final stages of the negotiations the Minister of Finance had performed the remarkable feat of uniting the provinces for the first time in memory-but uniting them, I regret to add, against, not with, the government of Canada. Thus, as negotiations proceeded, even though the minister

modified his proposals to make them more equitable and acceptable to the provinces, because the atmosphere had already been poisoned no sense of building a workable consensus developed. Rather, the provinces were made to feel that they were wringing essential concessions from the federal government against its will.
One of the most famous of Aesop's fables is that of the competition between the wind and the sun to get a traveller to remove his cloak. Hon. members will remember that the wind tried first. His approach was to blow the traveller's cloak off his back with his strongest blast, but the harder he blew, the more tightly the traveller held on to his cloak. When the sun's turn came, it simply beat down on the traveller, and when he grew warm enough he took the cloak off voluntarily. Throughout these negotiations the Minister of Finance used the tactics of the wind rather than those of the sun.
He did accomplish his purpose; we do have an agreement before us. But had he chosen the sunny way and had he begun by exploring the potential for consensus, rather than immediately polarizing the negotiations into a test of will, I believe he would have reached a settlement sooner, that he would have received more assistance, and less resistance, from the provinces, and that the exercise would have reduced the mistrust and relaxed some of the tensions which have marred federal-provincial relations in recent years.
My leader referred on Friday to the period of creative federalism inaugurated by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and to the co-operative federalism of the late right hon. Lester B. Pearson. Unfortunately, the hallmark of this government will be neither creative nor co-operative, but combative federalism.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: We have a settlement of these arrangements because the will to make federalism work in this country is very strong. It is strong at both the federal and the provincial level. What the present government seems to lack is the belief that that will exists in anybody else other than itself. Feeling that it is surrounded by hostile forces, it goes into negotiations with a chip firmly in place on its shoulder. But to inspire trust one must first have the self-assurance to trust others. I am not naive enough to believe that if a conciliatory approach was adopted, every federal-provincial conference would become a love-in. There are always real conflicts of interest which can only be reconciled by hard bargaining. However, that bargaining would be far more productive if the provinces and the federal government brought to the negotiations a realization that their common purpose is to reach acceptable settlements and not to find out who will knuckle under to whom.
It is all too easy to see our problem in terms of conflict between the federal government and the provincial governments. All the attention is focused on the arenas of federal-provincial conflicts, the conferences of ministers and first ministers and the adjudication of federal-provincial disputes in the courts. It is my belief that in our concern with issues of this
February 21, 1977

kind we have lost sight of a more fundamental question. That question relates to the nature of Canada, to the reason we have a federal system and not a unitary system of government.
Conflict between the federal government and the provincial governments is not our problem; it is the symptom of our problem, a problem which has to do with the nature of this country. The reason we have a federal system and the reason we have problems with it spring from a common source: The regional character of Canada. That character is determined by our geography and size. There is a regional diversity of interests and concerns in Canada-practical, basic economic and cultural interest and concerns. These characteristics of regionalism in Canada, inherent in its nature, will not be changed simply by adjustments in the balance of power between the federal and provincial governments. The problems of regionalism in Canada cannot be solved solely by constitutional amendments or through redistribution of tax points.
I am not suggesting that constitutional amendments or the redistribution of tax points are unncessary. We clearly need to ensure a rational distribution of responsibilities and a rational allocation of funds to meet these responsibilities between the federal and provincial governments. However, it is equally important that we have national policies-federal government policies-which take into account regional differences. When this goal is not actively pursued by the federal government, Canadians tend to identify more and more with provincial governments as the obvious vehicle to redress regional imbalances and regional grievances. This growing dependency on provincial governments to provide solutions has reinforced the regional attitudes which have always existed in Canada, making us primarily concerned with the difficulties and aspirations of our immediate locales; but often we are unaware and unconcerned about the real problems and the real opportunities that exist elsewhere in the country. This turning inward has tended to make us lesser, not better, Canadians.
As provincial governments have been pressured to counteract the difficulties exacerbated by national policies which all too frequently fail to recognize the reality of a country based on regionalism, so provincial demands for more and more power to meet these pressures have escalated. When they are not met, the conflicts between levels of government, as well as the polarization between regions, also escalates. The situation in Quebec at the present time is but the most obvious and the most threatening manifestation of a deep-rooted malaise in this country. If we are to break out of this vicious circle of compounding conflicts, federalism will demand a greater degree of reconciliation and accommodation than all Canadians, particularly this government, have been prepared to offer to date.
As we pursue that arduous but necessary task of reconciling national policies with regional interests and creating the framework in which regionalism becomes the bedrock of, rather than the alternative to, strong national feeling, let us not overlook the unique and essential contribution which parliament has to make. This is, after all, the only institution in Canada which can speak for all Canadians. It is the only
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements institution in which every community, province and region is directly represented. It is the only institution where 264 men and women come together to represent simultaneously the interests of their various constituencies and the national interest.
None of us, I believe, who has any sensitivity at all can sit long in this place and not gain an overpowering sense of the richness and diversity of Canada, of the interdependence of its parts and of its potential for greatness if we can ever fully exploit the unique contributions which each of our distinct elements has to make to the national spirit and character. Members of parliament, by our very role, have something unique to offer to any discussion on the future of federalism in this country. While the federal-provincial conference has emerged as a major forum of federalism in this country, its perspective of federalism is necessarily limited; the roles are stereotyped.


James Aloysius McGrath: It has become a private club.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That is very true. The Prime Minister will speak for Canada. The premiers will speak for their provinces. That is the nature of their mandate. But in parliament we have a mandate to speak both for our local constituency and for Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: We have that unique dual perspective which will become more and more vital as our federal system evolves. My leader put forward the proposal on Friday that prior to each major federal-provincial negotiation there should be a debate in parliament on the principles of the position, or at least of the options the federal government will present. If such a tradition were established, the general public would be informed as to the importance of the issues being negotiated at these conferences, the provinces would come into the negotiations with a clearer grasp of the nature and implications of the federal position, and the air of mystery and intrigue which now surrounds the process would dissipate.
Federalism is now facing its ultimate challenge. We can no longer entrust its fate to a close elite of 11 first ministers and their officials.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It would be strange, indeed, if the parliament of Canada which so uniquely reflects the reality of federalism were to allow itself to be excluded from participating in the revitalization of that federalism. In the case of the bill before us today, parliament was relegated to the sidelines while these fiscal arrangements were being negotiated. Every time this happens, parliament is diminished-and at this critical time in Canada's history we need strengthened, not diminished, national institutions.
This House, Canada's national forum, must become, again, what it was intended to be-the place where the diversity

February 21, 1977
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
which is Canada is best represented and where the forces of mutual need and mutual aspiration bind that diversity into a nation. For that is what it must be if this country is to survive.


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, it is that much easier for me to approve this bill that it is the result of long but fruitful negotiations between all the governments of our country. The agreement having been signed by all the authorities concerned, it would be ungracious of me to oppose it, despite some reservations about some of its secondary stipulations. However, and this explains the bitterness with which the agreement was reached, Bill C-37 is a typical example of the way federal-provincial relations should not be approached.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, we saw the Minister of Finance of Canada patronize the provinces, launch the discussions with resounding statements, threaten to put an end unilaterally to the guaranteed income program for the poorest provinces, and denounce the implicit agreement reached with difficulty five years ago in that particularly sensitive area. The proposals of the minister met with justified anger. For the first time in our history, all the provincial governments opposed a common front to the claims of the central government that it could, as it saw fit, dispose of the incomes of the country and reshuffle the equalization system.
The attitude of the minister gave rise in all sectors, and particularly in Quebec, to deep seated resentment. It increased the skepticism of many Quebecers with regard to the possibility of living within a form of federalism in which the provinces would be considered more than mere pawns but as true partners in the confederation to which they gave birth. Almost a whole year was wasted in useless quarrels and exhausting palaver. Two meetings of the finance ministers ended in deadlock. Finally, the leaders of the governments themselves were called in. They had the wisdom to agree on a compromise, but not without Ottawa having had to back up almost on every point. Bitterness persisted among the participants. In Quebec, federalism lost some support that went to the independent movement. 1 shall not dwell, Mr. Speaker, on the provisions of the bill which, over-all, renew, with some alterations, the agreement signed five years ago and which expires at the end of March.
I note that in the area of equalization payments, the Minister of Finance has completely reversed his former position. He finally took the stand directly opposite to his proposals of last April. He wisely accepted to include in the new agreement a clause which, for each year of its duration, guarantees that provincial revenues will be maintained if the federal government were to modify its income tax scale. In the case of established programs, the minister has even innovated, which is quite fortunate and he deserves congratulations for that. The new agreement combines the traditional system of direct payment from the federal treasury with the transfer of fiscal points to the provincial administrations.
The new system should allow for greater flexibility in the administration of those programs, particularly in the case of
[Miss MacDonald.)
hospital and medical insurance plans. It will suppress the rigidity of the old formula about which provinces had good reasons to complain. Mr. Speaker, this legislation, goes to the core of our federal system and constitutes a practical application of it. Since federalism transcends the mere question of income a sharing, I should like, with your leave, to indicate a few avenues that could help us overcome the crisis facing us and which might not have reached its peak yet.
With regard to the overconcentration of decisional powers and income sources in the hands of federal leaders-a concentration of which Bill C-37 does remain a glaring illustration- the official opposition advocates greater decentralization of the legislative and administrative systems through a federalism of consultation. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, this idea was put forward with firmness and clarity by the official opposition leader (Mr. Clark) in his speech in the House last Friday, and all members would find it quite profitable to read it again. For us, decentralizing powers is not a means to weakening Canada, but on the contrary a means to reinforcing the structures and enhancing its efficiency. In my opinion, this decentralization will allow every government level to co-operate effectively towards the enforcement of the national policy.
Indeed, it is not a matter of denying the federal government powers that are essential to the country's cohesion. We must admit that, in some key areas such as the economy, Ottawa should enjoy the legislative supremacy without which Canada would face chaos. This is not the moment nor the place to define those essential powers. This should be the matter of a constitutional conference which hopefully should not be delayed indefinitely. For the time being, I shall only regret that for this government, Ottawa too often meant Canada. As a result, it assumed powers and mandates that could have been exercised with as many if not more advantages by provincial governments in the best interest of the Canadian community.
The constitution of 1867 provided for the existence of these governments precisely because of the disparities in the culture, the resources and the traditions of the different parts of the country. If we had tried to stick more closely to the objectives established by the Fathers of Confederation in the past, we would not probably hear about associated states today because the provinces would take an effective part in the establishment and the implementation of general policies which have been mutually agreed upon. Mr. Speaker, I refer particularly to the field of taxation which happens to be the subject matter of the bill before us. If all specialists tend to agree that Canada is divided into five economic areas, with various needs and priorities, would it not be more logical to use the resources and the capacities of each of the provincial governments to counterbalance the deficiencies in federal policies in local situations?
Nobody will deny the federal government a right to legislate to standardize incomes and give equal opportunities throughout the country. But considering the failure of some of their policies, one can wonder whether we have not been led astray
February 21, 1977

too often and whether it is not the proper time to give the provinces a role which so far has been consistently denied by the federal government. For example, for how many years now, I do not know, we have been facing two problems- underemployment and inflation. Ottawa did take a lot of initiatives to cope with this, yet nobody could say that it has fully succeeded.
Would it not be better, Mr. Speaker, if the federal government, through fiscal and economic legislation, merely established a kind of common denominator from which a provincial policy, more attuned to local economic conditions, could be developed? Thus the provinces and consequently all Canada could stand a better chance of successfully tackling either inflation or underemployment, according to which is the more directly affecting them. However, to avoid the confusion which could result from ill-concerted initiatives, I think the Canadian confederation has to find new structures which could lead to this kind of federalism of consultation I was referring to.
I want to make it quite clear, Mr. Speaker, I am not in the least advocating breaking up our country as a prerequisite for renegotiating new conditions of association between its various components. During its hundred years of existence, the Canadian confederation has proven that it can meet the legitimate aspirations of each province and of each of its founding people. Therefore, the renegotiation of a new constitution must be conducted within the present framework of this country. As former premier Daniel Johnson said one day with humour, why divorce to go into a new partnership without knowing whether the other partner would still want to do so under the same conditions? Since in the spirit of 1867 Canada was also an economic union, can we not imagine, for instance, a national planning council whose role could be inspired by that of the European Economic Community Council.
This council could operate through commissions copied on the European model. It would remain then to define the type of representation for the various governments and the nature of the powers conferred on the new council. However, it would be desirable for a government to be represented by permanent delegates who would be commissioned to enter into contracts on behalf of their agents. Today, 1 shall simply launch this idea. It could allow us to find a durable solution to our present problems by assigning to each government level the role to which it is most suited.
I have talked about economic planning. There are other sectors where national commissions like the one I have just mentioned could advantageously replace the often sporadic meetings of ministerial conferences. Commissions could operate in other sectors, like agriculture, manpower, immigration, housing, regional development and so on. They would establish national priorities in each of those areas and would suggest them to the political authorities. I am not saying that discussions within the commissions would not sometimes be arduous and that all conflicts would be avoided, but I believe that such commissions would have a better chance of avoiding the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
tensions and crises which we have too often witnessed these last few years.
A truly national policy born of a consensus among all governments would, I believe, have a better chance of being accepted by the whole population because it would be more able to meet the objectives and priorities of each part of Canada. If we had such a council, we would probably have been able to offer better protection to several of our industries which are now threatened, and I am thinking about textiles, shoes, dairying and so on. We would have been less exposed to criticisms on the part of the areas whose interests were messed about or even sacrificed. We would probably have given our common development more coherence, more continuity, and we would have avoided many costly improvisations. At any rate, one thing seems sure: we would have better respected one of the objectives of the Fathers of Confederation, the economic union which led to the British North America Act. What the countries of the European Economic Community are now doing, their parallel economies, their various interests, and for some, the settling of their historical enmities, why should we, Canadians, who have been associated for more than a century in a country as big and as varied as a whole continent, why should we not be able to do?
But to do so, we must be firmly convinced of the need to separate decision-making centres and to modify consequently this constitution which no longer completely meets the needs of a modern Canada. Because it does not have a past full of mistakes, because it is the direct descendent of those who made this country, because it has always believed in a better distributed authority, the Progressive Conservative party is better placed than any other to preside at changes which are now needed urgently to save Canada from latent desintegra-tion. Mr. Speaker, I know that following the verdict given November 15 last in Quebec, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) says that he is now ready to start again the dialogue interrupted in Victoria, to re-assess everything and to amend if need be the constitution in its entirety.
I would certainly believe in his conversion if in the same breath the head of the government did not declare publicly his skepticism about the chances of that kind of endeavour and if he stopped praising the merits of policies which no longer satisfy anyone and in which he alone believes. He would still have my confidence if he did not despise so much what he contemptuously calls the "constitutionality" and if he did not ignore the concerns of so many Canadians asking for a new constitution with more definite powers and responsibilities for each level of government. However I would not like Canadians to delude themselves and believe that minor economic or administrative reforms will neutralize all the pressures threatening the unity of our country. In Quebec, for instance, the concept of independence originated from other concerns. The Parti Quebecois exists because, for a nation that has reached its full maturity, independence is a normal objective.
The exciting desire to live freely is not illegitimate as such. So it is by a continuous effort of reflexion and also a reflex of prudence but mostly a deep attachment for a country where

February 21, 1977
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements their ancestors were pioneers that the majority of Quebecers have until now-and I am convinced it is still the case- adhered to our federal system even if they wish some changes to it. Mr. Speaker, federalism facilitates their self achievement as an autonomous community without the hazards inherent in a largely illusive sovereignty.
However, federalism will be saved in our country only if the association of our two communities is based on the equality of the two cultures and the mutual acceptance of the two languages through which they are channeled. The future of our country could be threatened if, because of the fanaticism of some extremists, a majority of Quebecers were led to the conclusion that they are no longer wanted in Canada and that there is no room for the French culture in their own country. Mr. Speaker, they are already seriously hurt by all these irritating remarks against the presence of a few words of French on mere commercial labels. They are indignant because some circles bitterly resent the expansion of French radio and television networks throughout Canada or want to deny Francophones the right to use French in their air communications over Quebec territory.
I am perfectly aware of the fact that most Anglophones are foreign to these explosions of bigotry, just as most Quebecers do not share this hostility to the English language. However it is high time moderates speak out and remind those who might be tempted to forget it that the development of one culture does not require of necessity the destruction of the other. Yet, I do not see why, because they are a minority, French Canadians should be the only ones to bear the consequences, if any, of a national policy on bilingualism.
When a country such as Canada has the rare privilege of having as its official languages those of two of the greatest modern cultures, it must be proud to use that privilege and share it with all its national institutions. The federal government must not be the only one to have that concern. The provinces' role is just as vital if we are to reach the level of linguistic and cultural equality without which bilingualism will only be an irrelevant moto. Canada's future lies not only in the distribution of jurisdictions between the various levels of governments. It is also linked to the way we treat our minorities, both in Quebec and elsewhere.
The time has not come yet, Mr. Speaker, to launch the great referendum campaign in Quebec, but it seems we are getting nearer to it. For the time being let me remind Quebec's new leaders that on November 15, they received a mandate to prepare such a referendum, but not to go through with independence. Indeed Quebecers entrusted them with their votes mainly because in the meantime they made a commitment to behave as a loyal provincial government rather than a sovereign one. They should not renege on their word. But as far as I am concerned, I would like to conclude by saying that with or without a referendum, my choice is made and I am all for Canada!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: While a true Quebecer, I opted for Canada because at a time of federalism I have no wish to go counterhistory wise. I choose to be a Canadian because I want to be true to my forbears' will, and Canada is the homeland they asked me to serve. I choose to be a Canadian because I will not be lured by the sirens of doubtful sovereignty whose benefits have not been proved. I choose to be a Canadian because I will not dive blindly into the unknown. I will not gamble my people's future at Russian roulette. I choose to be a Canadian because my fellow countrymen in other provinces need a Canadian Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: They need a Canadian Quebec to survive and conquer their place in the sun. I choose to be a Canadian because I refuse to bury myself in a morbid isolation in which Quebec would merely be the shadow of what it formerly was, in which its culture and economy would constantly be jeopardized. I choose to be a Canadian because I do not renounce, I do not renounce any part of my heritage, because I like every little bit of this country which my fathers have discovered and erected. I choose to be a Canadian because I want to feel at home in the quiet villages of the maritime provinces, in industrial cities of Ontario, in the wide western plains and in the magnificent mountains of the Pacific coast. But in turn I want to be accepted in this country as equal and I want my mother tongue to be recognized as a betterment of the Canadian heritage.
I choose to be a Canadian, because Canada, whatever can be said, is one of the great achievements of history, and I call to witness the many people who envy its power and prestige. I choose to be a Canadian because in Canada I find protection of my democratic freedoms and respect for the cultural values which I was entrusted with. I choose to be a Canadian because, after all, Mr. Speaker, the social stability, economic progress, cultural influence and even the international prestige of the province of Quebec are closely linked to Canada.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to make a few comments on this bill. I am a little unhappy about following the great and illustrious speaker from Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner), who just resumed his seat. However, I will do my best not to bore too many people. I am sure I will not be able to live up to his great performance. I have the responsibility to make a few comments in this debate because the fiscal arrangements act touches a significant number of federal-provincial fiscal arrangements which fall under the general subject of health. Being my party's health critic, I want to participate.
We had a very long debate on the subject of health less than a year ago, a debate dealing with Bill C-68 as it was known at that time. In my view, it was one of the first clear indications of the attitude of this government which created the difficulties this country has been experiencing over the past decade or
February 21, 1977

so, particularly the past couple of years. The difficulties to which I am referring are those which involve themselves with confederation; the fact that the country, under the stewardship of the present Liberal administration, seems to be falling apart at the seams. The largest single contributing factor to the difficult situation which confederation is in is the fact that we have a government which is suffering from the disease which leaders and governments have suffered from ever since the first time history was recorded. The Greeks like to refer to this disease as a hubris. The term is appropriate to apply to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), the Minister of National Flealth and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) and the key people who have been in charge of this government over the past few years.
Perhaps 1 should take some time to explain the condition. I am sure Your Honour will immediately recognize the similarity between the condition these men suffer and that originally described by the Greeks, if you care to refer to Greek history and the comments made at that time about the leaders of the day.
The condition to which I am referring involves a certain kind of pride. Everyone will agree that if an individual is to be successful in life he must have a certain amount of pride in himself and his ability to achieve. Through that kind of pride he has a certain amount of self-confidence which is required in order to propel an individual to strive for better things for his country, his family, himself, or whatever. In this case the particular pride has been destructive to leaders since time immemorial. It is a special kind of pride. It is an insolent pride, a pride of insolence and arrogance, a kind of pride which is really not justified. However, the keepers of it feel they are justified because they are appointed by divine right to rule and make decisions for everyone. This insolent pride is the reason we have a substantial strain between the federal government and virtually all of the provincial governments in this country. It is the reason for the loss of mutual trust and respect which is necessary between federal and provincial governments if confederation is to function in a meaningful way.
I am sure this mutual trust and respect existed when the party to which I am pleased to belong, the Conservative party, brought together a number of provinces to form confederation. If we review history ever since confederation we will not find that any other federal government has been as guilty of this insolent pride, and so destructive to confederation, as the present administration.
I mentioned Bill C-68 as the time when I, personally, became faced with this kind of pride in my dealings with the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It might be worth quoting some of the exchanges that took place between that minister and the members of the health committee who represented this party during the course of the deliberations on that subject. I wish to quote from the committee proceedings which took place about a year ago, No. 46:18. A questioner from this party asked in committee:
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
But before quoting, Mr. Chairman, I want to come back to a subject which I had touched on previously. My concern is for the effect of this on confederation and federal-provincial relations in general.
We were talking about Bill C-68 which was a unilateral, arbitrary imposition of a federal government decision upon the provinces without any kind of meaningful agreement with the provinces and without having had sufficient negotiations to come to an agreement. I continue the quotation:
Now we know that at a federal-provincial ministers' meeting of health ministers in early 1975, the federal government had made a commitment to the provinces, or at least had agreed to abandon the rigid plan for imposing arbitrary federal expenditure limits. The federal government at that time also agreed with the provinces to explore various alternatives for improving the cost effectiveness of health programs within the context perhaps of a more flexible interpretation of the existing federal-provincial agreements. My understanding is that a federal-provincial committee was set up of officials where studies were under way in order to determine methods of improving the health care delivery system at perhaps a lower cost. That committee was to meet to analyse results some time in July, but the minister of finance decided to announce in June, just two or three weeks before this meeting was to occur, exactly the kind of unilateral action which the minister had assured the provinces only a few months earlier would not take place. To my way of thinking, the country in which we live was built on a federal system. Confederation itself was built on the spirit of federal-provincial co-operation of such a kind as was necessary to keep the country together and to keep the citizens serviced with the best facilities possible under today's conditions.
We also know, for example, that during the administration of this government-and by that 1 mean since the advent of Prime Minister Trudeau- separatism in Quebec has grown perhaps by leaps and bounds. Alienation in the west has reached perhaps the highest peak since confederation or since the western provinces came in and the maritime provinces feel desperately neglected in many ways.
At this point, one of the Liberal members from New Brunswick shouted: "That is not true".


An hon. Member:: Who was he?


Paul Yewchuk: It was the hon. member for Madawaska-Vic-toria (Mr. Corbin). We are faced with legislation here with which virtually no province agrees. Every province has rejected it. Every province has indicated in no uncertain terms that it wants desperately to sit down with the minister of health in an effort to reach a mutually acceptable agreement with regard to changes in the health care delivery system. Yet the minister chooses to bulldoze his way ahead in spite of the fact that he has been before the committee on at least four or five occasions now, during all of which time he has failed to provide any reasonable explanation for choosing to take this route in the face of commitments to the provinces only a few months earlier that any changes which might be made would be arranged through mutually acceptable pathways of negotiation. The response of the minister to all that, and more, was this:
Mr. Chairman, several of the statements made by the hon. gentleman are so preposterous that I have difficulty in taking them seriously.
He went on to say that about 95 per cent of them were preposterous. He considered them to be so preposterous that he had difficulty in taking them seriously. Mr. Speaker, the statements which I made consisted largely of a summary of a number of letters sent to us by all the provincial ministers of
3248

February 21, 1977
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
health. So, in effect, the minister was saying that everything that those provincial ministers had said was preposterous and was not worth replying to at all. Then he flipped his lid, lost his temper, as he usually does, and said:
To come to some of your points. I will not spend much time on separatism in Quebec. I suggest you look at scientific surveys which have been carried on in Quebec over the last ten years-and I am ready to compare my expertise on Quebec with yours-and you will find that the percentage of people in favour of separatism in Quebec has not grown in the last ten years.
That statement was made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare only a year ago. At that time he was the Quebec lieutenant. We all know he is now a corporal or a private, but at that time he was in charge of organization in Quebec. I called attention to those exchanges because they illustrate two things: first, the sanctimonious, arrogant pride these people on the other side have, and, second, their total misreading of the situation in Quebec as far as the seriousness of the separatist movement is concerned. We have heard no further statements from that minister on the subject. However, we know he has now been replaced by another minister as Quebec lieutenant or organizer.
We know that the government since 1963, and particularly since the coming to power of the present Prime Minister in 1967, has had all the power needed to govern this country effectively, to come to grips with the problems of the nation and to devise appropriate solutions for them so as to ensure that the provinces would stay together on the basis of the evident advantages of a united country. I am sorry to say that these "leaders"-I put that word in quotation marks-completely lost that opportunity to keep the country together. We saw a similar failure on the part of the Liberal administration which was in power in Quebec for such a long time. It had taken to the habit of saying to Canadians over the years, in effect, "We are the only people who are capable of keeping the country together", and it was blaming Canadians at large for the country's falling apart.
Almost every time he goes on television these days, the Prime Minister blames all Canadians for the problems facing the country. He tells them he is working, he is trying as hard as he can, but it is the fault of all those naughty Canadians who refuse to do the things he says they should do to keep the country together. There is a certain short-sightedness on his part in taking an attitude of that kind because hon. members know as well as he does, if he is as intelligent as hon. members think he is, that the difficulties surrounding confederation are a direct result of his own policies and his own approach to governing this country.


An hon. Member:: He is an expert on the simplistic approach.


Paul Yewchuk: Hon. members on the other side are very sensitive. They always become a little excited when somebody on this side tells the plain truth about how things stand. They cannot bear to hear the truth because they are not accustomed to living by it. I am not trying to pose as an expert on Quebec, but I can pose as an individual who knows as much about confederation from the western point of view as the hon.

member from Quebec who has just interjected knows about the western point of view.
I hear the hon. member from New Brunswick also interjecting to say he does not agree with the comments I am making. The fact is, it is the leadership of the Prime Minister and the government which is in question. The ideas and policies they have been putting forward are not accepted by anyone any more. It is not a matter of English Canadians not accepting French Canadians; it is a matter of all Canadians not accepting this particular leader and this government any more. The reason is that their policies, instead of unifying this country, have divided it to an extent never known before.


Mr. Breau:: That is your opinion.


Paul Yewchuk: That is my opinion, and I believe it is the correct situation. I am saying to hon. gentlemen opposite who are getting so excited that they should stop blaming Canadians for the problems we have and start blaming themselves. After all, they are the ones who have been in power in this country for nearly 15 years-and look where the country is after 15 years of Liberal government!


Eugene Whelan: The country is doing very well.


Paul Yewchuk: Certainly, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is not the envy of the world. Let us consider, Mr. Speaker, why Canadians are angry. Canadians are not angry at each other. I do not believe that Anglo-Canadians are angry at Franco-Canadians or that Franco-Canadians are angry at Anglo-Canadians. I think all Canadians are simply angry at governments which have been dishonest, which have been totally incapable of comprehending their problems, let alone of solving them. We still see the same kind of attitude persisting. Let me give the House an example. Even the former illustrious minister of finance, Mr. Turner, left that bunch in disgust. But he contributed-


Mr. MacFarlane:: You should let him speak for himself.


Paul Yewchuk: I will certainly do that.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: I would not dare to.


Paul Yewchuk: Even he contributed to the difficulty that we find in Canada with regard to relations between the people and their elected politicians. The government has a program having to do with indexing of income tax, and I remember that that particular minister, whom I have to say was fairly well respected on all sides of the House most of the time, and perhaps in all parts of the country, attacked my formed leader, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), with great vigor in his own home town of Truro, Nova Scotia, which he visited to try to belittle the tax indexing proposals which my former leader made at the time. Indeed, he spent a good deal of time during the 1972 election campaign belittling my leader for having put those proposals forward, saying that they would bankrupt the country, that the country would fall apart under
February 21, 1977

that kind of tax system. Yet lo and behold, as soon as hon. gentlemen opposite came back with a minority, they proposed indexing.


Herb Breau: Of personal exemptions.


Paul Yewchuk: All of a sudden it was a good idea. You can look at it whichever way you want, but if you look at it honestly you will have to accept the fact that this was deviousness and dishonesty on the part of that minister of finance. I suggest there is no other way to look at it.
Let me give the House another example why Canadians are unhappy with government and with the situation that exists in this country. Let me go to the 1974 election. Our party proposed a program which was known as price and income controls. 1 am sure that every member on the other side who is sitting there smiling right now and getting a little excited went out on the hustings and spoke against that program. 1 can remember advertisements on the radio to the effect, "if the Conservatives win, they will freeze your wages; is that what you want?" That is what hon. members said, and they all admit it.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: That is what you said, too.


Paul Yewchuk: We did not say that.


Mr. Roy (Laval):: That was a long time ago when things were quite different.


Paul Yewchuk: In proposing that program, Mr. Speaker, we put forward a positive and honest approach, knowing full well that there were dangers in it. But we consciously made the decision to be honest with the people and to tell them what the prescription was going to be. But the members on the other side who still govern, thought we were rather foolish for being honest with the people and they chose the other course. They chose to be the opposite of honest and they were re-elected.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Surely you are not challenging our honesty.


Paul Yewchuk: They came back with a majority and the very first thing they did was to bring in income and price controls. I do not know how they justify it, Mr. Speaker. I have heard the Prime Minister say, "Well, that is just smart politics", or something to that effect, and many of his friends have said the same thing. They sit and drink their beer and laugh about it. It is smart politics to them. They were dishonest with the rest of the people, but they are in government.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Do not try to analyse the last election after so long.


Mr. Kempling:: Anything to win!


Paul Yewchuk: I hope the whip on the government side will take the opportunity to say a few words on the bill when I sit down. He seems to be so anxious to participate; so do many other members over there. But it is rather curious that none of
80008-68*72
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements them has made a speech on this bill today. They have all sat back in their usual sheep-like manner waiting for the bill to be rushed through. I hope they will save some of their interjections, Mr. Speaker, put them together in a speech and present them as soon as I sit down.
To get back to the question of price and income controls which hon. members opposite campaigned against, and won the election because they campaigned against them, the result of that has been a total-


Herb Breau: Order. Get back to the bill.


Steve Eugene Paproski: This is part of the bill. Let Charlie look after it, Breau.


Paul Yewchuk: The result of that, Mr. Speaker, has been a total-


Marcel-Claude Roy: This was two years ago, and the results are there for all to see.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) has the floor for the purpose of making a speech.


Steve Eugene Paproski: We saw the results of November 15.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, you must have an inordinate amount of patience not to have thrown your show at hon. members by this time. I hope they will listen and learn, because 1 want to tell them that honesty in politics is a very essential ingredient if we are to preserve the democratic system. The fact is that the result of the flip-flops on the part of this government has indeed undermined the democratic system in this country. You see reports in the press every day, and hear people from all over saying that you cannot trust politicians, that "they are like a bunch of bananas-they hang around in a bunch, they are yellow and there is not a straight one among them." That is the kind of picture that the people of Canada have of their politicians today, and it is a direct result of the kind of dishonest dealing this government has participated in ever since it has been in power, simply out of a desire to propel itself into power, not at all caring what effect these tactics will have on confederation or on the democratic system itself.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister says to us that all we have to do, if we want Quebec to stay in, is to say to them, "I love you" it makes me want to laugh. As a matter of fact, it does a lot more than that; it makes me sick to hear him talk that way. I think it is high time he stopped fooling around with the people of Canada, came clean and tried to come to grips with the problems that face this country today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Now we are getting the truth.


Paul Yewchuk: 1 have been in this place, Mr. Speaker, for nearly nine years. I grew up in a community where there were

February 21, 1977
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements people from many parts of the world who were all Canadians living together in harmony and peace. This harmony came as a result of the children of immigrants growing up together, going to school together, playing together, working together and living together. That, in my view, is the way Canada should be. But since we have had this government in office, all of that has gone. All of that harmony has been destroyed. As a matter of fact, I think there is more racism in this country today as a result of the policies which have been pursued by this government which has been pitting one group against another, one racial group against another in an attempt to divide and conquer. I think that kind of thing has to stop because the situation is too serious for governments to play with.
People in government in this country must forget about their own selfish aims, about keeping themselves in power forever. They must start thinking about what needs to be done to help Canadians understand each other better, to help Canadians to live together in peace and harmony in the way they did before the policies of this government shook them by the bootstraps. To me, Mr. Speaker, winning is not the primary objective, though this may sound a little foolish coming from a politician. However, I think it should be possible for political parties to win by honest means and to keep power by honest means. It is high time that the philosophy was stopped that it is more important to win by devious means than if by honest means you lost the election.
Why is there disunity in this country, and why have people become polarized? Let us go back to the Saskatchewan situation of a few years ago. I remember a very famous quotation of the Prime Minister. The Minister of Agriculture might be interested in this. The Prime Minister asked the farmers "Why should I sell your wheat?" I would like the Minister of Agriculture to explain to me the way he explains to farmers in Saskatchewan how that kind of statement creates unity. How does that kind of statement make the west feel that it is really part of Canada and that the government is really interested in doing more for the west and making the west feel welcome in this nation? I would like to hear an explanation of how, "Why should I sell your wheat", furthers unity in this country.
I represent an agricultural constituency, and in western Canada agriculture still happens to be one of the largest industries. We want to know why there is alienation in the west. When we are dealing with the subject of unity we should examine the policy started by a former minister of agriculture, Bud Olson. He was once the member of parliament for Medicine Hat. He decided that the way to solve Canada's agricultural problem was to take large numbers of farmers off the land and leave only a few who would then farm much larger units. Theoretically, that was supposed to be economically viable. We have seen the results of that policy. The agricultural industry in the west has been trampled by subsequent ministers of agriculture, totally ignored by the whole government, and it has come to the point where western agriculture is Finding it difficult to survive. If we want unity, and if we want

the western portion of this country to feel more strongly that it belongs to Canada, we must reverse the policy of the destruction of agriculture.
Mir. Whelan: Be honest about it.


Paul Yewchuk: The minister is objecting because he thinks I am not being honest. I would like him to tell me why he has not done something about the beef situation in the west. Beef producers are Finding it virtually impossible to carry on, but at the same time we are importing millions of tons of foreign beef. Our own producers are being squeezed out of business because they cannot make a profit. This minister sits by and says, "Let's bring all that beef in to make the consumers in the city happy."


Eugene Whelan: That is not true, either, and you know it.


Paul Yewchuk: If the minister has any sense of fairness, he would do something about that. What representations has he made with regard to the GATT talks which are going on now in so far as the importation of beef into Canada is concerned? He has already told us that he has made no representations about the importation of dairy products, and the dairy industry is also in serious trouble. The minister said that today during question period.


Eugene Whelan: I did not say that in the House.


Paul Yewchuk: I suggest the minister read Hansard if he cannot remember what he said. All these things give us some idea as to why there is not very much unity in this nation. Let us come back to Ottawa. Hon. members will recall that a few years ago some demonstrators came here from the province of Quebec. They were unhappy with the way the federal government was treating them. As they were demonstrating, the Prime Minister happened to drive by in his car. He opened the window and uttered some famous words which I will not repeat because I do not think they should be repeated in this place. However, the words certainly were not "eat cake". I would like the Minister of Agriculture, who was just interjecting, to tell me how-


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Oh, oh!


Paul Yewchuk: -or the government whip to tell me how it furthers unity when the Prime Minister sticks his head out of a car window and shouts words like that to a group of protesters. How does that strengthen the desire of the people of that province who want to belong to this nation?
There are many other things I could go on about, but it is obvious that these fellows are just not interested in listening. They have their own views, and even though their own views have been a total failure for the past ten years they still have them. They refuse to examine the situation and admit that they might have been doing something wrong, that there might have been some misinterpretation as to what is holding this country together, and as to what we must do to hold the country together. We have not heard any of them voice the opinion that a re-examination on their policies is necessary.
February 21, 1977

Let me refer, again, to the west and to the oil and gas export tax which was suddenly imposed on the producing provinces without consultation, virtually wiping out millions of dollars of revenue upon which the provinces were counting. That was imposed by the federal government without consultation. The provinces were simply informed by way of a press release, a television speech or something of that nature. That is not the way to keep provinces trusting the federal government. The federal government should not make sudden decisions of that kind and inform the provinces by way of press releases. Rather, it should at least have the decency to make a telephone call. We have a very serious problem in this country and until we reverse that kind of approach to federal-provincial relations we will continue to have serious problems.
Let us consider the totally unrelated subject of scientific research. We want to know why there is unhappiness among the people of this country, why the people are unhappy with the government, why they do not seem to trust their politicians any more, and why they are looking for radical changes. Anyone who has any concern about the development and progress of this nation will admit that scientific research is a very fundamental part of the development of any nation. But what have we seen under this government? We have seen a continuing erosion of research. Researchers have been driven out of the country.


Francis William (Frank) Maine: Have you looked at the estimates?


Paul Yewchuk: Yes, I have looked at the estimates.


Francis William (Frank) Maine: They are up.


Paul Yewchuk: They have been increased less than the increase in inflation in the scientific field. If the hon. member disagrees, he can speak when I sit down and can give the facts as he sees them. In any case, we have a situation where the scientific community has been totally undermined and it is totally disgusted with and discouraged by the policies this government is following. They are Canadians, too, from all parts of the country. They are involved in teaching our students in universities and in many other institutions, and they are totally disgusted with the political process because it pays little attention to real needs but much attention to political gains.
Let us consider our national defence forces. There is a huge military base in my constituency.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The one in mine is leaving.


Paul Yewchuk: The one in the constituency of the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) is being dismantled.


Steve Eugene Paproski: They are taking our Francophone unit.


Paul Yewchuk: Let us consider what has been happening to the funding of the defence forces of this nation. It is easy to see that it has been continuously underfunded, undermined and underequipped. Bases are being closed everywhere and some
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements are being moved unnecessarily-all things which appear to be totally ridiculous and unfounded.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: This is untrue.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You don't know whether you are coming or going.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: There is a 12 per cent increase this year.


Paul Yewchuk: These are things this government is doing, and the government tells Canadians that it is their fault that there is no unity in this country. I suggest, once again, that this government, including the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer), re-examine these policies seriously rather than simply take the reactionary approach the minister is taking now which assumes that anything the opposition says is totally inaccurate.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: You are not reading the documents.


Paul Yewchuk: It is high time everyone in the cabinet took a look at what is happening in this country.


Steve Eugene Paproski: How much are agents getting this year?


Paul Yewchuk: I think that we can also have a look at aboriginal rights. We will find that those rights have been ignored for a decade since this government has been in power. This has just been put off forever. You might ask, "Why do the native people express displeasure with this government? Why are they unhappy? Why is there disunity?" All you have to do to find the answer is to look at the record.
What upsets me most is that there are about one million Canadians in this country without work. Regardless of the statistics the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) might choose to quote, whether they wish to say there are 750,000 unemployed, or one million, both those numbers are very high. The government tells people that all they have to do to solve their problem is to say to Quebec, "I love you" and suddenly everyone will be happy. If they did that I am sure the response would be a very unpleasant one.
The Conservative party brought this country together over 100 years ago. This is the party which brought about the marriage, so to speak, between the Anglos and the Francos. Those are the words the Prime Minister himself has coined. I do not like them, but that is what he likes to use. So the Anglos and the Francos were married at that time. We kept the country together for 100 years or more. Now the marriage is falling apart. The Prime Minister's vision of the marriage is that Quebec has become like a petulant wife who simply wants her husband to tell her that he loves her. I suppose he envisages Quebec as a petulant wife because he is a petulant man himself and sees others in his own image.
We have a new premier in Quebec. I do not want to attack him unjustly because he has only started in his job, but I have to say that I do not like what I see so far. He seems to be

February 21, 1977
Adjournment Motion
saying, "Here is the wife"-Quebec being the wife and the rest of Canada being the husband, I suppose. Perhaps it should be the other way around. He seems to be saying that the wife has decided she wants a divorce but she would be willing to cohabit so long as the husband pays her enough. That seems to be the approach of the new premier of Quebec. I must say that the Prime Minister, and the former and the present Premier of Quebec, all three gentlemen, are totally wrong in their impression of the country and what it is.
I think the philosophy which these two gentlemen have adopted, namely, to do anything that is necessary to further their political goals, should be cast aside. The time has come when all Canadians-but particularly governments because they are the ones in power-must make up their mind to take all necessary steps to cure the ills to which I have referred and a whole lot of others to which I have not referred. When all these ills are dealt with, I am sure that confederation will be further ahead than it appears to be at present. It seems that the stage is set for the party which brought this country together to come back and reaffirm the marriage which took place 110 years ago. I am very pleased to say that we are ready, willing and able to do it-and the sooner the better.



PROCEEDING ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Public Service-Freezing of pensions of members of armed forces and mounted police until age 60- Denial of pensions to certain widows-Request for report; the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave)- Transport-Possibility of continued assistance to flour shipments through Atlantic port; the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston)-Manpower-Canada Works Program-Suggested creation of special fund for recycling operation.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock? I will be speaking in private members' hour.


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


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Notice of motion No. 4, in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The motion stands at the request of the government. Notice of motion No. 7, in the name of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall).


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The motion stands at the request of the government.


BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of making a proposal to the Parliament of the United Kingdom to amend the British North America Act to include the following provisions as adopted unanimously at the Canadian Constitutional Charter Conference held at Victoria in June 1971:
"The parliament and government of Canada and the legislatures and
governments of the provinces are committed to:
(1)	the promotion of equality of opportunity and well being for all individuals in Canada;
(2)	the assurance, as nearly as possible, that essential public services of reasonable quality are available to all individuals in Canada; and
(3)	the promotion of economic development to reduce disparities in the social and economic opportunities for all individuals in Canada wherever they may live."; and
That the Parliament of the United Kingdom amend the act only where it
has received a formal request from the legislatures and governments of the
provinces to amend the act in the same manner.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it is obvious that because of my background I am a fairly strong believer in the concept of providence. There is something providential in the fact that we are debating this notice of motion on the day on which we are having a general debate of fiscal arrangements, because there is certainly the closest possible relationship between the bill presented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) and the motion I have on the order paper today. This motion asks the government of Canada to submit to parliament a proposal for amending the BNA Act, our constitution. It would add to the BNA Act a statement of purpose or commitment to which the federal and the ten provincial governments would subscribe. This purpose, simply stated, would be the elimination of disparities and the promotion of equality of opportunity for all Canadians regardless of where they live. This motion asks also that in addressing the British parliament for the proposed
February 21, 1977

amendment no action be taken until the ten provinces have signalled their approval through like addresses.
Although the amending formula in this motion does not necessarily reflect either my personal or my party's position on an appropriate formula, unanimity among the 11 governments would be the most desirable and effective approach here. It would symbolize the breadth of our commitment as a nation to equality of opportunity and at the same time offer a basic point of common agreement from which to renew our constitutional dialogue.
On the issue of disparities there are two essential reasons for this motion today. First, and most obvious, is the widespread disparity of opportunity among Canadians. I believe these disparities are undeniable by any measure. They are to be found in living standards, income, employment, educational level, available social services, security, one's hope for the future and one's sense of purposefulness or meaningfulness within the Canadian confederation. As Joey Smallwood described the situation during the 1969 constitutional conference:
Some youngster is going to be born tonight somewhere east of that north-south line in Quebec or in the four Atlantic provinces, of whom you may say that a court has condemned that Canadian baby to an inferior existence-food not so good, home not so good, schools not so good, hospitals not so good, roads not so good . .. that child is condemned, as though a court had done it, to an existence inferior to the Canadian average.
What these disparities come down to, in very human terms, is that certain individuals, certain communities, certain regions are denied the opportunity open to their fellow Canadians to fulfil their dreams and aspirations whether as individuals or collectively. What hurts the most in admitting the range and depth of disparity across Canada is that so much of the solution lies within our power. The question is not whether we can eliminate disparity but, rather, whether we are committed and concerned enough as a nation to do anything about it. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) thinks we should be, noting in 1968 as follows:
[DOT] <n<x*
If the underdevelopment of the Atlantic provinces is not corrected, then the unity of the country is almost as surely destroyed as it would be by the French-English confrontation.
Again, as recently as this month in his reference to inserting collective rights in a new constitution, he said:

"The right which people have to live in the part of Canada they like best and where they were born . . . without being penalized by not having access to equal opportunities." [English]
Certainly no less a commitment was given by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) in Charlottetown last year when he said:
-regional disparity is an issue on the fringes of government policy-making instead of being a preoccupation at the centre of government policy-making when it should be and where it will be in a Progressive Conservative government.
Former prime minister Pearson stated at the 1968 conference that he regarded-
British North America Act
-the problem of raising economic levels in the Atlantic provinces as a principal aspect of the total problem of maintaining unity.
Or, as Premier Robichaud phrased it in 1968:
Canada's human cultural objectives may fail because they are not rooted in socioeconomic substance.
Past federal governments have also agreed and acted to reduce disparity. As far back as 1927 we had the first national pension scheme: in the 1930s, R. B. Bennett's reforms during the depression; later, the green book proposals and accompanying social legislation after World War II; then, of course, the first organized attempts to deal with disparity as a regional phenomenon under the Diefenbaker government through programs such as the Atlantic Development Board, ARDA, the adjustment grants, and so on; and in the late 1960s there was the creation and substantial funding of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion which attempted to co-ordinate programming and general policy-making for the federal government. In fact, apart from national unity it would be difficult to find a single theme upon which all administrations of all political stripes have been in such close accord, namely, that the disparity of opportunity between Canadians must be lessened and, if possible, eradicated. Yet disparity persists- even widening by some indicators.
Where we have been somewhat successful is in improving material living standards on an individual basis. But there has been almost no progress in helping those individuals, communities and regions to break the cycle of dependency to attain a position where their future is in their hands, coupled with the economic means to realize their potential. Providing to all a guaranteed standard of living has become increasingly the role of the federal government. Enabling them to do it for themselves has not.
The task is far vaster than can be undertaken by any government alone, with its limited resources, multitude of conflicting claims and pressures from vested interests. The task requires a mobilization and direction of our will and material resources on a scale not seen since the national policy of Sir John A. Macdonald. We need, in fact, a "new national policy" if we realistically expect to overcome disparity of opportunity among the individuals, communities and regions of Canada; one in which the federal government may provide leadership but which demands no less the same commitment from provincial governments and the private sector alike.
The task is truly immense. We must, for example, overcome the biases in our economic structure which deny to certain regions the opportunities afforded to others. We must overcome the biases in our culture which create the belief in countless Canadians that their way of life and goals are second-class compared to those of their fellow citizens. We must find and implement ways of convincing those with a material or psychological stake in the status quo that the national interest demands its restructuring. We must find ways of encouraging and involving the private sector in giving our disadvantaged areas the same opportunities for productivity as in the more fortunate regions. We must encourage individuals, especially in the poorer regions, to restore their faith in our

February 21, 1977
British North America Act
economy and institution by proving that it can work to fulfil their needs and aspirations, and not just those of some other group or region. This task we face is of direct relevance to the constitutional process, because when a nation faces a challenge of such proportions as to overshadow any other before it, then that task requires a focus or a clear and unequivocal statement of purpose unlike any other. That focus, I believe, is our constitutions.
The second equally compelling reason for adopting the motion at this time lies in the current state of the constitutional review process. Patriation and an amending formula may be on the horizon, but without detracting from the powerful symbolic import of these events, they will not alleviate the backlog of dissatisfaction over inappropriate divisions of power, murky areas of responsibility, insufficient guarantees of individual and collective rights, etc. Although the Prime Minister appears to have discovered a renewed interest in the process of bringing our constitutional arrangements in line with modern realities, it is difficult not to conclude that little apparent progress has resulted.
The common ground on which to base the process of dialogue has not yet been found. Further, a basic agreement on the nature of that process will not be reached so long as the 11 governments involved have no shared perception of what they want out of the constitutional process. There is even a certain sense of futility to discussion about the "hows" of constitutional arrangements-division of powers, and so forth-without first achieving some consensus of the "whys": Why Canada? Why government? Why a federal system?
Only when there exists reasonable consensus on what this nation is about, and what the basic purpose of our governments should be, should we proceed to work out the mechanical arrangements of which level can best do which tasks. It is noteworthy that the British North America Act itself offers no sense of purpose about the nation it brought into being. "Peace, order and good government" is as close as it comes to defining such a purpose-but to what end? It is silent on that critical question.
Our present constitution reads like a contract for "business as usual", albeit under a different roof. It is totally preoccupied, apart from settling certain debts and liabilities with the form and practice of our government institutions-not with shedding light on the nature of their "business". We can only assume that the structures created by the BNA Act reflected the goals of a self-assured class which is a ridiculous perspective in a modern-day constitution. We are too pluralistic and, what is more important still, too conscious of that pluralism to permit the luxury of unquestioned assumptions about our nationhood.
I would not underestimate the difficulty of finding agreement on our objectives as a nation. There is a pressing need for at least one common point of agreement, shared by all 11 governments, if the process is to succeed. I submit that the commitment to equality of opportunity, to the eradication of disparity, is such a common point of agreement.

The substantive wording of this motion has, in fact, already been agreed to unanimously by the 11 participants at the Victoria constitutional conference in 1971. It represents a statement of purpose for confederation with universal acceptance by each federal and provincial participant in the constitutional dialogue, which meshes well both with our values and with the historical concerns of our federal government. To give a sampling of the breadth of agreement on this national purpose, I quote from presentations made by participants at the constitutional conferences of 1968 through 1970. The then premier of British Columbia, W. A. C. Bennett, said in 1969:
We hold it to be the right of Canadians in every region to have a standard of living equal to the national average.
The premier of Alberta, Harry Strom, said in the same year:
Our view is that we could and should find much more far reaching solutions to the question of inequality in the distribution of wealth in Canada.
The premier of Ontario, in 1969, John Robarts, said:
There is a national need to rectify economic disparity .. . There must be some meaning to being a Canadian regardless of where you live, regardless of the economic circumstances of the particular area in which you live.
In Quebec, in 1968, premier Jean-Jacques Bertrand said:
Economic disparity between the country's various regions is one of the two critical Canadian problems of the day.
It is true today, if not more so, than at the time he uttered those words. Later, in 1970, former Premier Bourassa said:
It is clear-that this question-
Meaning economic disparity
-should be given special mention in the text of the country's constitution.
Premier Smith of Nova Scotia said, in 1969:
It is of fundamental importance that the constitution provide for balanced regional economic development.
Premier Smallwood of Newfoundland said, in 1968:
The constitution should give recognition to the existence of serious regional disparities throughout Canada . . . and shall declare the need to eliminate such disparities.
The report of the June, 1969, working session spoke of "placing a moral obligation upon governments to take measures to combat regional disparities", and, significantly, the report went on to note that "no arguments were raised against this kind of obligation." Finally, the conclusion from the third meeting of December, 1969, was:
The conference reiterated the earlier agreement that the objective of reducing disparities across the country should be written into the preamble of a revised constitution as a basic goal of the Canadian people.
I suggest that what we have before us represents a clear, unequivocal agreement on a most basic purpose of government and of confederation. It is an opportunity for leadership that we in parliament should not let slip; that is, to give expression to such rare constitutional consensus among our 11 governments and at the same time to initiate the most significant attack on disparity ever undertaken by this nation. Some would argue that this type of amendment should not be introduced alone; that either it should be part of a comprehen-
February 21, 1977

sive revision or, at least, be included as part of a constitutional bill of rights. I do not agree. The disparities in this nation continue to erode our nation at a time in our history when we can least afford it.
I can appreciate the Prime Minister's reference to the "collective rights" of those burdened by unequal opportunity. But these are not rights in the traditional sense; they are rights which demand substantive government action and intervention. They should stand on their own, separate from a bill of individual rights, and they require immediate implementation. Finally, there may be some feeling that embodying such a basic purpose of confederation within the constitution means nothing except yet another symbolic frill. That would be a serious misreading of the power of symbols in a nation such as ours. I leave the last word on this subject to the only surviving father of confederation, Joey Smallwood, who observed at the 1960 conference:
Even if clauses relating to regional disparity were not legally enforceable, that does not prevent them from becoming potent political forces, if need be, at some future time.
I firmly believe such action now would be a significant and positive step in strengthening our commitment to the ultimate value and worth of Canadian confederation. I hope that hon. members on all sides of the House will see fit to give approval to what I hope will be an important contribution to the further building of our Canadian confederation.


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Battleford-Kindersley);: Mr. Speaker, the motion which the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) has brought forward for discussion this afternoon gives all of us an opportunity to discuss two important subjects-the constitution itself and regional disparities in this country. On both subjects, particularly the latter, my hon. friend opposite has devoted much time, effort and energy both in the forum of the House of Commons and elsewhere. I wish to make some observations on the motion now before the House although, I regret to say, without the benefit of enough time to do as much research on this particular motion as 1 should have liked. I begin by considering the wording of the motion itself which has as its basis either article 46 or 47 of the Victoria conference, to which the hon. member referred. The first paragraph of the hon. member's motion reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of making a proposal to the Parliament of the United Kingdom to amend the British North America Act to include the following provisions as adopted unanimously at the Canadian Constitutional Charter Conference held at Victoria in June, 1971.
I question the words "adopted unanimously". I take exception to them and take exception to that idea as embodied in the context of the motion. The Victoria conference itself may well have agreed unanimously on the substance which forms the basis of the hon. member's motion. Certainly, I am sure that no political leader, federal or provincial, or adviser would disagree with the hon. member's idealism or his "motherhood" position, if I may use that phrase. When I refer to the issue as being one of idealism or motherhood, I do not intend to underrate it, for any politician in his right mind would adopt the hon. member's general position. Nevertheless, taken by
British North America Act
itself, the Victoria conference as a conference was a failure and the unanimity to which the motion refers was not achieved. The government of Saskatchewan did not agree to the proposed general amending formula which it is suggested resulted from the work of that particular conference.
Saskatchewan's representative at the conference was the then attorney general, Hon. D. V. Heald. The conference took place about ten days before the general election in Saskatchewan, the election which resulted in a change of government in the province. The election resulted in the Liberal government, of which Mr. Heald had been a member, going down to defeat to be replaced about ten days later by the government of Allan Blakeney. He is still the premier.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: 1 suppose there was a sort of unanimity of consensus, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) himself acknowledged in a letter to do with the achievements of the Victoria conference dated October, 1971, of which I shall quote one paragraph:
The charter was subsequently approved by the government of Canada and the governments of eight provinces. The government of the province of Quebec, however, did not give its approval to the document. The government of Saskatchewan changed pursuant to the election of June 23, 1971, and thus far the present government has not taken a position on the charter.
1 will not read the concluding paragraph of the Prime Minister's letter of October, 1971. Although I have not inquired recently of the provincial government of Saskatchewan, I believe the statement the Prime Minister made in his October, 1971, letter holds true today. The government of Saskatchewan did not, and does not, formally approve developments which supposedly resulted from that Victoria conference. Indeed, may I draw to the attention of hon. members the position of the then attorney general of Saskatchewan. The question of constitutional reform and the Victoria conference was dealt with in the legislature of Saskatchewan. If I recall correctly, the present premier was then the chief opposition spokesman. If I may I quote briefly from hon. D. V. Heald's presentation to that conference, he said in part:
We come to the conference in a spirit of co-operation and good will, knowing that all other participants approach the meeting with the same spirit. We believe the objectives of confederation and a new constitutional document can be achieved. We hope that our deliberations here in the next few days may contribute to the strengthening of confederation.
Concerning the amending formula, our government has always taken the position that no one province should have the right to veto constitutional changes. We now understand that several provinces are not prepared to consent to an amending formula which does not provide for those provinces having a veto. We still feel that other less rigid provisions should be considered. However, in a spirit of co-operation and with the hope of achieving a consensus we arc prepared to accept the amending formula which we believe was agreed on in February.
Generally speaking, I understand that eventually there was no consensus on the part of the western provinces on their role in approving or disapproving amendments. I continue quoting:
3256

February 21, 1977
British North America Act
We would repeat this is a compromise. We are not too happy about it and we hope our willingness to compromise here will be reciprocated by other delegations when we advance proposals that are very important to us.
We repeat the position taken by Premier Thatcher at the earlier conferences that there are problems facing our people which have, in our judgment, a far-higher priority than constitutional reform. We will be bringing these problems to the attention of the conference, as we have in the past, and ask for sympathetic understanding and co-operation from the other delegations.
I will not go on to discuss the points raised about transportation policy and regional disparities, the very theme and essence, except considerably broader than that advanced today by the hon. member for Egmont. On that general point, I am sure that if the former premier of Saskatchewan, the late Ross Thatcher, were alive today he would think differently about the position in terms of priorities on the question of patriating our constitution and the revised amending formula and, indeed, a revised constitution. However, that is perhaps neither here nor there with respect to the debate this afternoon.
I suggest we would be confusing and perhaps muddying the waters if we approved this resolution to which its theme and object I certainly subscribe. I do not quarrel with the hon. member's objective. However, to move in this regard alone at this point in time would be a mistake. By the same token, I have no great suggestion as to where and how we should move in that sense. We need to come up with better answers and better approaches. We should move quickly to get our constitution here, finding an amending formula, revising and updating the document so that we can get on with the job of building tomorrow. It certainly concerns all of us.
In his opening remarks, the hon. member referred to the current debate on the fiscal arrangements act. It touches upon the constitution. We have had numerous effective changes and adaptations over the years by virtue of federal-provincial agreements. I am not now speaking of those conferences called to discuss or consider the constitution as such but, rather, the many, almost ongoing airlifts between this capital and the various provincial capitals respecting and affecting government departments and agencies. The results of the various agreements worked out there have a very direct effect on how the country operates. They have resulted in effective changes. We have had enough of that approach. As far as I am concerned, we have had more than enough to effectively modify or change the constitution of this country.
I disagree with the hon. member's remark that we should not reject this motion. We should think of broader things. We should be expanding the hon. member's resolution and getting on with the job of developing the kind of constitution this country needs, aimed at the theme put forward in the hon. member's resolution. Let us join the Prime Minister and the government in this regard. It is only by such a debate and joint endeavour that we can systematically deal with not only the concerns of the hon. member for Egmont but other concerns on vital issues which are at the forefront at this time.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) on bring-
[Mr. McIsaac.J
ing forward this resolution. We have all too little discussion in this House on constitutional matters. That is unfortunate. Although it is rather out of fashion to talk about constitutions, the plain truth is that constitutions are the fundamental law which provide the framework within which all of our laws are made and our government is conducted. We have neglected the responsibilities of parliament in this field. Therefore, the hon. member for Egmont has done a good thing in bringing this matter before us.
1 have one complaint about one small aspect of this resolution. I could not disagree with the main purport and I do not think very many members of the House could disagree. The hon. member has taken from the provisions of the Victoria charter which were agreed to-either unanimously or, at any rate, substantially-statements to which the federal parliament, the government of Canada and the governments of the provinces are committed. The First reads:
-the promotion of equality of opportunity and well-being for all individuals in Canada-
We should be committed to that. My worry is not whether we state it in general terms often or not, but whether we do the practical things which bring about that equality. The second paragraph reads:
-the assurance, as nearly as possible, that essential public services of reasonable quality are available to all individuals in Canada-
That is something that we ought to be committed to as well. I am glad to reassert that. The last paragraph is somewhat similar; it reads:
-the promotion of economic development to reduce disparities in the social and economic opportunities for all individuals in Canada wherever they may live-
Those three general statements seem to be quite unexceptional. We should try to spend-perhaps it cannot be done in one resolution-a little more time working out and talking about how we are going to make these commitments into real things. For example, all these forms of equality require equalization payments flowing through the federal parliament from the richer parts of the country to those that do not have the equivalent tax power to provide public services of reasonable quality. Without equalization, that will never be done.
I sympathize with and entirely agree with those dealing with our present problems, such as the unity of Canada, who say that we must be flexible in dealing with those problems. That is fair and reasonable. I hope that in approaching the problems of Canada, particularly the problems of federal-provincial relations, we will be flexible.
I want to issue a word of warning. If we are too flexible, allowing ourselves to deprive the federal government of the effective spending part, the effective fiscal arrangements and effective powers to carry out this task of equalization, we will destroy this country. There are many different ways of doing this but we have to be careful that we do not so deprive our central institution, the federal government, of the power which will enable it to do the very things which are talked about here-to promote equality of opportunity, and so on. We have to preserve the power to deal with these things if we are to
February 21, 1977

carry out the programs to which parliament and the provincial governments have agreed in this field.
I would not object at all to greater delegation, either formally or otherwise, of the administrative powers of government to the provincial legislatures but such delegations and such revisions to our constitution should not be carried out at the expense of creating an ineffective federal government at the centre. We cannot preserve our country on that basis.
The same is true, in my judgment, with regard to economic development, efforts to reduce provincial disparity, and so on. It was proposed not only in the Victoria Charter but also by the Joint Committee on the Constitution, of which the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) was the chairman, that these objectives should be included in a preamble to the constitution. This was the view of the joint committee, a very representative committee composed of senators and members of the House of Commons and which listened to people from all over Canada. They said-and this is not inconsistent with what the hon. member has proposed- that a preamble ought to be provided in the constitution to include these and other items which are basic to the future of our country, and I suggest it might be done in that way.
I said there was one part of the resolution of which I cannot approve. It is the last paragraph. I am not sure whether I have misunderstood the hon. member for Egmont, but what the words seemed to say is that the parliament in the United Kingdom should amend the act only when it has received a formal request from the legislatures and governments of the provinces to amend the act. It may well be that the hon. member was thinking only of these particular changes, but this touches on a very definite subject, and that is the whole question of the formulas of amendment and, indeed, the other question of repatriation of the constitution.
I do not believe there are many hon. members who are not of the opinion that we should have our constitution made into a totally Canadian document. This would involve not only patriation but many changes in the terms and expressions contained in the document.
In the joint committee report on the Constitution of Canada to which I have just referred, it is well pointed out, in my view, that a constitution ought to be an inspiration and a mirror for the community as well as an instrument calling for the distribution of powers and that, of these two ends, it is the inspirational role which is the more important. That is very true.
We do need, as the report recommends, a new constitution, though getting a new constitution means following a long, rocky road. What the hon. member proposes is fine, but in the last paragraph he seems to be harking back to the formula known as the Fulton-Favreau formula originally proposed by Mr. Fulton, a former minister of justice, and later revived by Guy Favreau, when he in turn became minister of justice. We, as well as the government of Saskatchewan, most strenuously objected to that formula, the reason being that it created an element of rigidity. It gave a veto to every single province, the
British North America Act
power to veto and-I use this word hesitantly when we are talking about such august bodies-even to blackmail the federal government and the other provinces. The wording of the last paragraph seems to me to revive that proposition. The paragraph does not actually refer to the parliament of Canada at all. It does, however, refer to a formal request from the legislature and governments of the provinces, all of them, presumably.
One of the things the Victoria Charter was able to accomplish, and I think it was a great advance, was to provide for an amending formula which got away from the straitjacket by providing that the majority of the provinces, consisting of a certain combination of provinces, was sufficient to approve changes in the constitution. Of course the approval of the federal parliament was also necessary. I do not suppose the hon. member will have another opportunity to return to this subject, but I hope that if he does he will be able to explain this paragraph to my satisfaction. I do not believe it is central to the main thrust of his resolution and, for that reason, I intend to support the resolution, though with the quite serious reservation I have expressed as to the last paragraph.


Mr. Pierre Bussieres (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, as previous members have done, I would like first of all to congratulate the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) for giving us the opportunity to discuss the constitution and another extremely interesting problem, namely economic and regional disparities.
I am also interested in another aspect of this resolution: what is called the Victoria charter. This subject is important because it is an historical event in the life of our country. I am convinced that if an agreement had been reached at the constitutional conference of Victoria, the pressures we are now experiencing would have been greatly reduced.
What amazes me is that the hon. member for Egmont retained only one aspect of it-article 7 of the Victoria charter. He emphasized this afternoon the importance he attached to it, due to the consensus obtained on that article by the representatives of various governments. However, I think other articles of this charter are extremely important and that some kind of agreement has been reached by those who took part in this conference. For instance, article 1 which deals with political rights, would bring within a constitutional instrument all the basic rights of the Canadian people. I feel it is important that these be included in the constitution.
Article 2 dealing with linguistic rights, and while 1 think it is of utmost importance to make sure that all individuals and all areas in Canada have equality of opportunity on the economic level, 1 feel it is also very important to recognize the equality of opportunity for all, no matter the language spoken. And I can say, Mr. Speaker, that there are still some Francophones in my province who feel they are not getting the same opportunities-and I am not talking here about air traffic controllers or air pilots. I feel therefore that this second article was also very important.
80008-69%

February 21, 1977
British North America Act
The fourth article which deals with the Supreme Court of Canada was also very important. It brought about a new flexibility to the operation of the Supreme Court, from the appointment of judges to the establishment of a college which included the attorney general, and so on and so forth.
The chapter on federal courts was also very interesting, and so was article 9 which dealt with constitutional amendments. I must confess, Mr. Speaker, that I should have been very proud at the time if the Quebec government had voted in favour of the Victoria Charter. I think that it was flexible enough to allow for the evolution of our country. I will quote, for instance, the Quebec City newspaper Le Soleil in its edition of June 23, 1971, in which the editorialist concluded as follows: "The acceptance by the provinces of this charter would enable us to repatriate our constitution and it is the interest of Quebec, like all other provinces, and to a certain degree, more than the other provinces, that the constitutional charter become a new step toward the affirmation of our national identity and of the two cultures on which it is founded." Mr. Speaker, that statement by the editorialist of the newspaper Le Soleil in 1971 reflected accurately the view taken by a good number of Quebecers of the Victoria conference. Again I regret that the government of Quebec was not at that time more broad-minded and did not give its support to those negotiations.
With respect to regional development, the hon. member for Egmont made very interesting comments and I am convinced that they represent the concerns of an important part of the people. However, I do not think it is necessary to amend the constitution to get working on that issue. It is high time for the government to have a real regional economic development policy truly adapted to the needs of all regions. It is also high time we have a real policy to give help to small and mediumsized businesses. Of course, a statement of intent in a constitution does represent some guarantees, but it does not represent any, for instance, for the Quebec dairy producers, the shoe industry in the riding of Portneuf which is having a hard time of it, but a real policy for the small and medium enterprises would surely reassure them.
A policy to protect our industry would give relative protection to our markets in the face of progressively obtruding imports. I would like to touch upon one last point: I regret that the proposal of the hon. member for Egmont is not more complete. I should have liked him to invite the government of Canada once again to resume the discussion on the patriation of the constitution, as soon as possible, and in another framework. At the time of the Victoria Charter, which is recalled here, several newspapers in Quebec pointed out the need for a broader forum for the constitutional discussions. After the November 15 election in Quebec of a party that wants to destroy the country, several editors took up once again in the newspapers the idea of broadening the constitutional debate. I feel we should attempt to remove it from the narrow compass of government heads alone, that is the Prime Minister of Canada and the premiers of the provinces, so far the only participants in the constitutional debate.
[Mr. Bussicrcs.J
To my mind, the forum must be enlarged. The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) was saying a while ago that we seldom have occasion to discuss that topic in the House, and I think all parties sitting both in the House of Commons and in the provincial legislatures are interested in those negotiations and should participate in them. I also believe many other citizens would be eager to discuss those questions; the sooner we come to an agreement and patriate the constitution, the sooner we will the have the opportunity of proving to the people that the government of Canada is able to adapt to situations and problems.
As our Prime Minister said recently in Quebec City, the objective of the constitutional discussions is to give each level of government the powers it needs to achieve as best it can the well-being of the citizens. And I think this should be our objective, without getting caught in the trap which the member who rose before me referred to, that is to say taking away from the central government the powers which allow it to distribute the wealth which is unfortunately uneven throughout the country. I think that if we vigourously tackle the constitutional revision and allow as many Canadians as possible to participate in the discussions, we will be able to come to an agreement and to include article 7 of the Victoria Charter as well as the other items. By doing so, I think our constitution will meet the expectations of all Canadians in a more satisfactory manner.
[DOT]	(1740)


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) on his support for regional economic development. Perhaps because 1 grew up, like him and with him, in Prince Edward Island, we both appreciate very much the need for regional economic development.
[DOT]	(1750)
If there is any place in Canada which needs regional economic development, it is Prince Edward Island. However, that is one of the places which has been undergoing it, and while in general I think I am not entirely satisfied with the way regional economic development has been proceeding-and this is one of the mental caveats I would feel if I were supporting a motion of this kind-I nevertheless think that in that province the development plan has been reasonably successful, and of course, many years of the plan are still to come.
I suppose we are all a bit uneasy about the fact that no method which has been tried so far-at least none of which I am aware-in the area of regional economic development has proved to be entirely successful, but there are many problems in life like that which we cannot entirely solve, and I think it is important for us to go on trying to solve them and certainly to express in the Chamber our support for those great objectives.
My problem with the motion is not at all with respect to its subject matter. As mentioned by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), my problem has to do with the end of the
February 21, 1977

motion. In his text the hon. member for Egmont says the following:
Although the amending formula in this motion does not necessarily reflect either my personal or my party's position on an apropriate formula, unanimity among the eleven governments would be the most desirable-and effective- approach here.
I presume by that he means that on an over-all basis he would not adopt a formula such as this, and I see him nodding his agreement. In that case I wonder why he would adopt it in a matter of this kind.
As the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Mcl-saac) has pointed out, there has not been general agreement among the provinces with respect to the desirable goal of regional economic expansion and equality of opportunity for everyone, and even if this were to be one case in which all the provinces could agree, I think the hon. member must realize that following a certain procedure in one case involving the constitution would establish some kind of precedent which it would be very hard not to follow in future times. It would certainly exert, if not a binding effect, at least a persuasive effect on what would happen subsequently.
There are two problems, as I see it, with the proposal here. The first is really an entirely novel proposal. I do not know why the hon. member chose to put it in this way, but he proposes that the Parliament of the United Kingdom not act until it has received a formal request from the legislatures and governments of the provinces. I just do not understand why the English parliament would proceed in that way. Surely it would be enough for this House to canvass the support which the provincial governments are giving, and for this House then to indicate, in the usual form of address to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, that it desires the act to be amended. Even if we were to go along with everything else in this, I cannot see any reason why we would adopt a procedure such as the hon. member suggests. It would depart entirely from the precedents. It would put the provinces in the position of dealing directly with the British parliament, which has never been the case.
The premier of Quebec some years ago tried to lobby- personally, I believe-the British parliament, and he simply was not heeded. This has been the unbroken tradition, and I do not see any reason why we would depart from that part of the procedure which we have adopted in the past.
The other aspect is with respect to whether unanimous consent should be required at all, whether that unanimous consent is expressed through this House or, as the hon. member for Egmont has suggested, whether it be expressed directly by the provinces to the British parliament. Should there even be a requirement of unanimous consent? Well, like the hon. member for Greenwood, I was not greatly enamoured of the original Fulton formula in which there was to be-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At 5.56 p.m. the House took recess.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 8 p.m.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) 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.
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: May I say, for the information of hon. members who may not have had the benefit of my comments before five o'clock, that I will offer some more now.
As I said when introducing my notice of motion at the start of private members' hour, there seemed to be some providence in discussing that motion with respect to the entrenching of an Amendment to the BNA Act concerning regional disparities and the over-all debate we are having today on Bill C-37 on fiscal equalization. It is providential, perhaps for me particularly, that I have an opportunity this evening to deal more specifically with the substantial bill before us, substantial both in terms of the money that is being allocated here as well as in terms of the major program with which it deals. We are creating a structure within which the provinces and the federal government will have to live during the course of the next five years, dealing with a number of basic social programs in the area of health and education in particular and, in general advancing revenues for the maintenance of equitable social programs from coast to coast.
Hon. members have taken already some opportunities to deal with the basic background to this debate in terms of where we stand with regard to the federal system. Comments have already been made with respect to the shape of negotiations that have led up to the agreement reached last December and the approach of this government to federalism.
Certainly I agree with my colleague, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), when she said this afternoon that the profile of combative federalism which has characterized the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and, I am sorry to say, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), has not been helpful to the country, and while the Minister of

February 21, 1977
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Finance waxed lyrical last Friday with respect to this agreement, certainly he was less than candid in his own performance in that situation, one which did not provide any leadership with respect to negotiation and reconciliation but one which was characterized far too often by unilateral approaches, ones that were in effect a kind of confrontation which our federal system can ill afford.
I suppose in a way the Minister of Finance, in this kind of "High Noon" approach that he has been adopting with provinces from time to time during his years in office, is not all that different from his leader. After all, from the outset to the time the Prime Minister assumed his position as justice minister in the Pearson government, he acquired an exciting reputation for himself by the way in which he was able to take on various premiers or other provincial officials and indicate what a clever fellow he was, how astutely he could argue nice constitutional points and, in effect, get one up, which I believe is the phrase, on various provincial governments. I cannot believe, and I doubt if many members honestly believe, that the exercise of one-upmanship will foster much by way of support for our federal system and for our willingness to understand and recognize each others differences, each others distinct advantages and sometimes liabilities. One would hope that at the very least, as a result of the election of the Parti Quebecois last November, the Prime Minister has dropped that particular unpleasant characteristic.
I have more serious concerns about the Prime Minister's style and that of the Minister of Finance because it has become my firm belief that, during his time in office, the Prime Minister has exhibited on far too many occasions an out of date approach to the concept of how our federal system works. I know that the Prime Minister, if anything, has been regarded as a constitutional expert, that he published books, wrote articles, gave lectures, and was considered to be one of the more informed people with respect to the advantages of a federal system, particularly ours. But I think also we have to recognize the fact that much of the Prime Minister's formative experience took place in an altogether different situation, in an era prior to the 1960's when Quebec as one province stood in a much different relationship to the Canadian federation.
I think as well that there has come through clearly during the Prime Minister's time in office a rigidity of approach which has not been attentive to modern day needs and requirements either of the federal or provincial governments. The clinging to rigid, outworn concepts has not helped us, either in fiscal matters as are before us today or in more general matters as they pertain to Confederation.
In addition, I find the Prime Minister has a shocking lack of a sense of history and a sense of understanding of the nature of this country. Indeed the Prime Minister's approach to dealing with the Confederation issue has far too often been a kind of individualistic if not elitist approach. I suppose that is not surprising, given his background, but I wish he would stop imposing it upon the rest of us. It is terribly important, when

viewing the situation in Quebec, in the Atlantic provinces, or in western Canada, to realize it is there not only in an individual sense but in a community sense. In dealing with that sense of community, its needs and its requirements, we will deal realistically with the shape of this Canadian federation.
As I said at the outset, Mr. Speaker, combining these with an attitude which registered federal-provincial relations on the profile of a winner's and loser's game will not help us to survive successfully in the twenty-first century. As I say, there are fundamental weaknesses in this government and its failure to understand the nature of modern federalism, and in particular the Canadian federation. I think some of them are reflected in the comments of the Minister of Finance on the measure before us today.
I want to quote two items in particular from the speech the minister made last Friday. As reported at page 3201 of Hansard for February 18 he said:
Wc 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.
In some ways one could not take great issue with that statement, but one is hit particularly with the use of the verb "stabilize" and the phrase "stabilize the economy". I suppose in a way the minister let the cat out of the bag some months ago when preliminary discussion was taking place on these particular negotiations and the bill that is before us, with the suggestion that they had to put the cap on in terms of runaway expenses, shared-cost programs, and responsible expenditures, and that we did not want to see a situation that is perhaps in danger of occurring in some areas of runaway expenses that bore no relationship to the needs in the several regions of the country.
What concerns me, Mr. Speaker, is the lack of recognition that the services that are being provided across the country at the present time, in health, hospital care, and post secondary education, are not all the same. There exists in some instances the widest possible disparity. To fail to recognize that situation would be to fail to take into account some of the pressing problems that we have within our Confederation.
As reported at page 3202 of Hansard for Friday, February 18, the minister also said:
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.
Statements about not paying much higher taxes, or about attempts to reduce regional disparities, in a sense are a kind of halfhearted commitment to something that I thought the Prime Minister and his colleague had committed themselves to very fundamentally and fully. I will not repeat or trespass upon the patience of the House to put on record some of my remarks during private members' hour this afternoon. The rhetoric delivered by the Prime Minister on such occasions falls very far short of what the Minister of Finance was telling us about this bill on Friday last.
February 21, 1977

It seems that we are in a situation where, on occasion, the Prime Minister's rhetoric has been very clear in dealing basically and directly with regional inequality. But nine years after he assumed office there are still no clear goals. Perhaps what is worse there are no accepted or defined strategies with respect to closing the gap-the income gap, the opportunity gap, the employment gap-that exists between the several regions of this country, and between those who are poor and depressed and those who are more affluent. Measured by several criteria we can discover very quickly that in some instances the gap has actually grown.
The major weakness I find in the legislation we are discussing tonight are that it does not take into account disparity of income, unemployment, and opportunity, and it does not allow for the very real differences that exist in the cost of living.
Some hon. members may recall that last December, at the time of the conference between the Minister of Finance and the provincial governments, I asked the Prime Minister specifically about the related aspects of this particular discussion. As reported at page 1677 of Hansard for December 6, 1976,1 put this question to the Prime Minister:
Last June I questioned the Prime Minister about the possible negative effect of the proposed fiscal arrangement amendments on the have-not provinces. He assured this House then that the changes would prove advantageous to those provinces. In view of statements to the contrary by a number of provincial ministers can the Prime Minister now state definitely that these proposals will maintain the previous commitment to narrow the disparity in social services between provinces, and in particular take into account the increasing phenomenon of very high unemployment in these particular provinces?
The Prime Minister replied:
Well, Mr. Speaker, on the last part of the question the proposals are not by themselves directly meant to deal with the unemployment problem. They have to do with social services, post-secondary education and medical and hospital care being part of the social services. The fact that some provinces object to them is not surprising. The provinces all come to Ottawa in the hope of getting a greater transfer of money or tax points. This is part of the routine of federal-provincial conferences. I told the House last year and I repeat now that these programs as they are being proposed, particularly the establishment of interim financing proposals, are meant to give the provinces a much greater degree of autonomy in the application of their programs and will still guarantee they will get the money necessary to fulfil those programs.
There were additional questions and answers which I will not put on the record again, Mr. Speaker, but the way in which they are presented gives a clear indication that the Prime Minister seems to fail to realize that in the kinds of major agreements being presented to the House today, and the transfer both of tax points and revenue, we are not dealing just with a "stabilization", to quote the Minister of Finance, of the present situation. If we are, surely we are condemning more than half the provinces of this country to being, in the common term, have-not provinces. I say that there is no attempt, either in the comments of the Prime Minister or perhaps more important, in the provisions of this legislation, to close the gap, or to deal effectively and directly with the problem that has plagued parts of this country since the time of Confederation.
I should like to quote from the report of the Royal Commission on Maritime Claims made in 1927 which had this to say:
We are bound to keep in mind that the depressed condition of the Maritime provinces, the contraction there has been in the revenue from their natural
Federal- Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
resources, and the absence of large-scale commercial and industrial enterprises make the problem of provincial taxation for them a very serious one indeed.
That is not a quote from the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council or from the Atlantic provinces chambers of commerce during the past few months but, as I said, from the Royal Commission on Maritime Claims 50 years ago. It does not appear that the message has been heard.


Herb Breau: Of course it has.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: My friend from New Brunswick will have an opportunity to explain in what way the measures before us are going to-


Herb Breau: You people keep on speaking.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: There are all kinds of opportunity, Mr. Speaker, and I am surprised that the hon. member is so bashful. Perhaps he finds it difficult to defend the legislation or to explain it in terms of closing the disparity gap about which we are both concerned. He is concerned about the problem in New Brunswick, and I am concerned about the problem in Prince Edward Island. I am sure the hon. member does not intend to stabilize disparity. I think he wants to believe that if we are going to arrive at an equitable agreement covering the next five years, at the end of that time these particular programs will have assisted, not detracted from the single role we all have in mind, that of putting the provinces of the Atlantic area on an equitable footing with the rest of the country. If the hon. member wants to speak on that and support that concept, I will give him my wholehearted backing.
To point out the difficulties which the federal government seems to have in perception, let me quote from the report of another commission which did not sit quite so long ago as the Duncan commission in 1926. I quote part of the Rogers report of 1934, with respect to the Nova Scotia submission on dominion-provincial relations, as follows:
The over-emphasis on money grants as a solatium for provincial grievances not only served to obscure the fundamental difficulties of the Maritime provinces within the federal system established by the BN A Act, 1867, but in its later development did much to disturb and vitiate the relations between the dominion and the provinces. In Ottawa it created an impression that disaffected provinces could always be bought off by a money payment. In Halifax and in other provincial capitals it suggested that the financial embarrassment of a province might be relieved by additional or increased subsidies from the dominion, secured as a result of a revival of old grievances or the formulation of new claims for financial aid. It is not intended to suggest that a revision of the financial arrangements of union was not necessary in 1869 or at later periods. This subject will be dealt with in due course on its own merits. It is important to observe, however, that the precedent created in 1869 gave a direction to the claims of Nova Scotia which had an unfortunate bearing on its relations with the dominion. It overstressed the importance of increased subsidies as a remedy for the economic difficulties of the province, and diverted attention from the more important task of securing an investigation and revision of those features of the federal constitution and of federal policy which have had a more important, though less obvious, effect on its economic position.
I have quoted part of the Rogers report of 1934 which reflected on the fact that subsidies or fiscal transfers in themselves are not enough and that we must make other,

February 21, 1977
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
major attempts to see that these provinces are put on a viable, resourceful footing of their own.
We see the situation in which, under equalization, we shall see transferred something like $2,195 million in 1976-77, whereas the Regional Development Incentives Act will be responsible for transferring less than $100 million. Indeed that is one substantial program which, according to the estimates tabled the other day, is to be reduced by some 10 per cent. That means, if one takes into account the over-all increase in expenditures, a reduction over-all between 15 per cent and 20 per cent.
It seems to me that the story of federal-provincial fiscal relations and arrangements is as tortuous as any you will find. As the Rogers report has pointed out, since 1869 various attempts have been made on the part of the federal government to make an equitable transfer between the various provinces, in order to assist the eastern provinces, particularly eastern regions which find it difficult to operate on an equal footing with the rest of the country.
Almost yearly one hears threats, complaints, and representations. One hears demands for new deals, threats to separate, and appeals to the imperial government. But there is one clear, consistent theme in all of this: it is that a number of provinces and regions have seldom received an equitable deal. Indeed, if I may use the example of Nova Scotia prior to Confederation, Nova Scotia had expenditures of $664,000. With the loss of customs and excise revenues to the federal government, it received total revenues of only $107,000.
The history of the maritime provinces in many instances is that of inadequate financing, while provinces which had the advantages of being centrally placed and able to formulate their own industrial base protected by tariffs were able to show budget surpluses. The Royal Commission on maritime Claims in 1926 concluded that the level of grants given the Maritimes before 1907 had not been just, and that even with the major fiscal adjustments of that year they were still based on an inadequate adjustment of what the dominion government should concede by way of grants.
The problem with which we must grapple, along with the complexities of this bill, is whether or not the arrangements which have been put before us and which were generally agreed to by the provinces in December hold out the danger of fundamentally increasing the sorts of disparities which exist now. When we look at the situation in the five eastern provinces specifically, and the swelling of the unemployment rate which has taken place in the past several months, we cannot be sanguine about this kind of proposed agreement and about the services which will be provided under this arrangement. We want to be sure that the formula and framework which is being presented here will not be so rigid as to prevent effective action for dealing with disparities of income, employment, or unforeseen developments which may affect either existing revenues or bring about, indeed, a shortfall of revenues, or excessive costs in certain programs of the poorer provinces.
The other thing which disturbs me, is that, despite the negotiations which have gone on for the better part of the past

year, there is no clearly defined commitment in terms of the standard of service to be achieved, and there has been little consideration of the impact of particular services within areas of acute economic and social disparity.
As 1 said at the outset of my remarks, one of the difficulties we faced in the past was the government's adversary approach in the field of federal-provincial relations. This has not happened once, in isolation. This course has contributed to the growing misunderstanding between the various regions of the country. When we look at the present state of Confederation we cannot be comfortable or feel confident about what is happening. What bothers me more than anything is the fact that misconceptions, misunderstandings, confusion, yes, even anxiety, exist in several regions of the country with respect to other regions.
What has contributed to these misunderstandings? Surely it is the fact that on a number of occasions the government, in attempting to resolve its own particular position, has reinforced some of the fears, misunderstandings and anxieties which exist. We have had enough of the confrontationist approach to federal-provincial relations, enough of unilateral actions which can undermine the confidence of provinces and the people of those provinces not only in the federal government but in the federal system itself. We need, more than at any time in recent years, a clear understanding of what our basic needs and requirements are, not only in specific localities where we, as individuals live, but in a total sense. We need to know, all of us, the various needs and requirements of the various regions of this country.
In addition, we need some sense of each other's worth. We spend so much time lamenting and listening to the problems being experienced in other parts of the country that we forget that in this unique experiment, Canadian confederation, we have each of us contributed our own gifts in the formation of this unique national enterprise. It is terribly important for us to identify the virtues which the various regions and provinces of this country possess, and show how we can all reinforce one another, to make Confederation stronger.
I suppose, in the final analysis, the responsibility rests heavily on the members of this House. It rests on members on all sides of this chamber who must realize that, individually and collectively, we represent a wide spectrum of opinion and aspirations existing in this country today. If these cannot be clearly stated and understood in the course of the next few years, if we cannot have a more frank discussion than has been the case, especially prior to the introduction of the bill we are now discussing, we will not contribute much which is positive or worth while in any attempt to re-invigorate and renovate Confederation, a confederation which has served us well for the last 109 years. Certainly that confederation can serve us a great deal better if we know which weaknesses need to be dealt with in Canada and where the strengths are which can be enhanced.
Although the Minister of Finance is not present in the House this evening I hope he will take very much to heart the suggestions made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark)
February 21, 1977

and the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) with respect to putting more than just discussions concerning major renovations and changes in federal-provincial matters before this Chamber, before such renovations and changes become a fait accompli. The government will be very much strengthened and improved by that kind of approach. Certainly the Canadian people will feel they have been much better served.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very pleased to follow my good friend, the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald). I have been very interested in this debate which primarily has been conducted by members of this party. It is too bad the government members are again sitting on their hands rather than participating in the debate on this very important legislation. We would like to know whether they are slavishly following the dictates of the cabinet with regard to this legislation. As is so often the case, again they are not voicing the perspective from their constituencies.
I was particularly proud of the way in which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) initiated the debate on our behalf with respect to this legislation. In an incisive way he dealt with the context in which this legislation should be considered. He made observations with regard to the kind of Canada he would like to see when he becomes Prime Minister of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I was also very interested in the remarks of my colleague, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). At this time, when there is a lot of interest in equality of the sexes and the promotion of women's rights in this country, it is significant that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands should be the first woman to analyse and deal with a financial bill of this importance in the House of Commons. She is the first woman in Canadian history to make such a contribution on this kind of legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I want to point out to the members on the government side that we are interested in looking at this legislation in its proper context. We are attempting to develop a meaningful debate with regard to the future of the country. It is very easy for members opposite to rely on their leader, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), to enunciate whatever policies they may have. However, in view of the developments that have taken place over the past few months, it is important for all members, regardless of party, to stand in their places and express the kind of Canada they see and want, and the reasons why they think it is imperative that this country stay together as one unit rather than splitting in separate directions.
As far as this party is concerned, I am not in the position of having to be modest on this occasion. The Conservative party has made a great contribution to matters of national unity. I am proud to serve in this House with the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). When he was prime
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements minister of this country he led an administration which paid attention to the various regions. It attempted to come to terms with some of the regional disparities we faced as a matter of tradition after many under a Liberal regime.
The right hon. member was aided in that particular government by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton). I recall very vividly some of the types of legislation and initiatives taken by that government. There were innovative and creative programs which dealt with regional matters in a new and challenging way.
It was a time when some of the hinterlands of this country were remembered and recognized by the central government. There were programs such as Roads to Resources, the ARDA legislation, and legislation with respect to Atlantic Canada. Regional equalization grants were given to Atlantic Canada. Initiatives were taken to bring some regional planning in terms of energy and power to Atlantic Canada. I recall the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act.


James Aloysius McGrath: The Atlantic Development Board.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: My friend from St. John's East corrects me. Regional initiatives such as this were taken by that government which was truly concerned about equality of opportunity regardless of region. They were not only related to electoral gains or electoral prospects, which seem to be the only guidelines of the present government.
The government led by the right hon. member for Prince Albert was roundly criticized by spokesmen for the Liberal party. Its then leaders travelled across Ontario saying that the prime minister was giving everything to the west. Because some attention was being paid to regional disparities in an attempt to bring equal opportunity across this country, this was turned against the government in Ontario and Quebec.
A lot can be learned from the initiatives taken by that Conservative government. I can assure hon. members that with a Conservative government after the next election there will be a return to the proposition where all parts of this country are regarded in equal terms and all will receive reasonable attention.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: There is one thing that characterizes this government's approach to federal-provincial relations. As others of my colleagues have pointed out, there has been a spirit of confrontation. It is fair to say not one provincial government, regardless of political stripe, trust the national government at this time. The whole aura that surrounds federal-provincial meetings is one of confrontation, the adversary system. There is not one co-operative endeavour for the best interests of our national, provincial and regional areas.
I want to say something to the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale), who henceforth will be known as "one-term Goodale".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

February 21, 1977
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: If he continues to interrupt, 1 may have to go my full 40 minutes. I know he wants to speak in this debate. I am sure he will have something important to say.
I want to deal with this legislation from the perspective of what consideration should be given to it and the kind of approach that should be taken with regard to federal-provincial relations. I am concerned about the situation that has developed in the province of Quebec. However, it is not a unique situation. Various regions of Canada, the outlying regions at least, have some grievances. As a westerner, I know that some of these grievances have been around almost since the time of Confederation.
All members of this House unanimously agree that the prospect of anything other than the continuation of a united Canada would be a disaster. Those who suggest otherwise on the basis of the separation of one part of Canada from the totality of Canada really misunderstand some of the difficulties which would follow such a separation. I am thinking of those who consider the prospect of carrying on under some common market arrangement among the different regions of Canada, but I do not think this is an easy solution or any solution at all to the problems of this country. Thinking in terms of a common market is not going to do anything to solve this fundamental problem.
There are different areas one could discuss by way of example to demonstrate that, despite talking in terms of some type of union between different areas, our problems will remain the same. If you talk, for instance, about the tariffs we might expect under this new union, if you talk in terms of common money, if you talk in terms of transportation, in all these areas separation, or a concept of union or co-operation under a common market concept, really does not solve any of the problems which would arise.
When I think in terms of tariffs, for example, and about the possibility of a common tariff policy being accepted by various regions in our country, I realize there is an ongoing difference of opinion. People in central Canada have traditionally been in support of high tariffs to give protection to the manufacturing industries. Consider textiles, for example. People in Atlantic Canada and western Canada tend to be free traders by basic preference.
Then we talk in terms of monetary policy. We know that massive unemployment now exists in the five eastern provinces and people in those provinces tend to think in terms of supporting an expansionary monetary policy in order to deal with this very real problem. But when you take the balance of people in Canada, support for expansionary monetary policy is not a priority item because people tend to be more concerned about the inflation and inflationary tendencies so these other parts of Canada tend to support a more restrictive monetary policy.
I cannot visualize how in any type of Canada separated by region there could be anything by way of improvement in the already unsatisfactory transportation system we now unfortu-

nately have. The fact is, I don't see that we gain any advantage by separating. I don't think, if one looks at these matters rationally from this point of view, that there is any particular or any noticeable advantage to be achieved by separation. I think we have to remind ourselves of the particular advantages of remaining united and trying to work within the context of a united Canada to improve each and every part and eliminate each and every regional disparity in each and every region.
I must say, as a western Canadian, that the idea of some type of alienation toward central Canada has been known to exist. There have been a number of expressions of that. Fortunately the feeling of alienation has not developed to any large extent. It has not developed to the point of there being any substantial support for separation as such. But there has been that kind of feeling in western Canada, and there is a historical background to this which has extended over a period of years. The more recent example, I suppose, is the concern people in western Canada have felt about the whole energy question. It appears to them, at least, to be a case of confrontation by the federal authorities against the rights of western provinces to exercise control over their natural resources.
The people of western Canada have, of course, been traditionally concerned over such matters as freight rates. They are at present concerned very greatly by the fact that while a national policy of restraint and controls is apparently being imposed in all parts of Canada, those controls do not seem to affect the cost of agricultural equipment and farming supplies, costs of which continue to skyrocket. These are examples of some of the general topics of discontent one hears about in western Canada.
I suppose it would be fair to say there has been across western Canada a general, undefined feeling that government located in central Canada has legislated with respect to western Canada under some form of thinly concealed policy of colonialism. This feeling, possibly has some historical basis, probably all starting with the difficulties leading to the Riel rebellion in 1885 which was brought on by ignorance of western conditions and indifference to prairie aspirations.
Between the rebellion of 1885 and the First World War the West was far too busy coping with the substantial number of immigrants coming to that part of the country to pay any heed to the grievances it might have had. There was, during those years, a commercial real estate and construction boom financed by eastern money. This money flow seemed to be arbitrarily shut down about 1913 when writs of foreclosure began to replace loans, and eastern bankers were blamed for extracting their pound of flesh. It has been stated as a fact that branch managers in the West pleaded guiltless and blamed policy decisions on head offices, a circumstance which helped to solidify prairie antagonisms. At that point in time, as it came clearly evident to western Canadians that they were somehow a captive market of the tariff-protected eastern manufacturers while paying freight on everything imported from eastern Canada, westerners felt they were obliged also to pay freight on everything they sold. Successive disastrous crop failures and wheat price levels wrought havoc over a period of

years and historically the central government seemed either incapable or unwilling to answer these crises. The political manifestations of the West and dismay over the circumstances led to the creation of political movements such as the Progressive party, that splinter party over here, the CCF, which is now called the NDP, and the Social Credit party. The self-image that western Canadians have of themselves is that of a cow fed in the west, housed in the west, but milked in the east.
The western historian, James FI. Gray, has said that it was an article of western faith that the fruits of western labour all went to enrich the Ottawa government, St. James Street, Bay Street, and the rapacious tariff-protected manufacturers of Ontario and Quebec.
I simply bring some of these historical considerations and feelings which one hears enunciated from time to time-and you will be glad to hear, Mr. Speaker, that there will be a happy ending-to the attention of the House to indicate that there is, and has been over a period of years, strong sentiment expressed by many westerners regarding their position within Confederation. While the list of generally held concerns on the part of western Canadians has been a long one, extending from the conviction that western Canada should have a higher proportion of seats in the Parliament of Canada to the feeling that legislation directed to the west has been characterized by a kind of handout legislation as opposed to more appropriate changes in taxation policy to stimulate economic growth and self-sufficiency, it is important that we understand the feeling of western Canadians in respect to regional disparity and the fact that those within western Canada are today not receiving the attention they should from the central government.
The fact of the matter is that, notwithstanding these statements, there has developed a very strong feeling in western Canada that, despite the fact that they consider they are not receiving or have not received fair treatment from the central government, the vast majority of western Canadians do support the concept of a united Canada and reject out of hand any concept of separation. 1 hope that we will continue to be able to have the people of western Canada support this particular position. I simply want to point out to my colleagues in this House who come from the province of Quebec that there is some sense within other parts of Canada that the needs and aspirations of these other parts of Canada have not in fact been met by the national government. However, let me tell these members, as a representative from western Canada, that I propose to do everything within my power to promote the concept of a United Canada, including a Quebec that receives fair and equitable treatment. I know that this feeling is shared by other representatives from western Canada, regardless of party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I want to deal, Mr. Speaker, with some of the specifics of Bill C-37. I think that this bill, when boiled down, amounts to an attempt by the federal government to
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements reduce its expenditures in health and welfare and the equalization of regional disparities. Despite the statements of the Minister of Finance to the effect that this bill represents the ingenuity of Canadian federalism, the bill represents nothing more than the attempt of the government to unleash the burdens of health and education costs upon the provinces. This is the government's motivation in hurrying this bill before the House, and it was its motivation in starting the whole process of federal-provincial meetings which led to this bill.
Understanding this, we must ask ourselves why the provinces are so ready to accept this change in fiscal responsibilities which adds to their already substantial burden in the entire area of education, health and welfare? Quite frankly, it is not because of the minister's claim that it gives the provinces greater flexibility in budgetary planning, but rather that the premiers and provincial finance ministers sensed that they were dealing with a federal government determined to reduce its responsibilities in the area of social services, and that the federal government was going to be totally inflexible in doing so. In short, the provinces understood that the revenue-sharing proposals of the federal government were the best they were going to get.
For the minister to argue that this bill is not going to disrupt the quality of social services across the country is to ignore the statements of the premiers upon leaving the federal-provincial first ministers' conference last December. Premier Blakeney of Saskatchewan, for example, predicted a revenue shortfall for the province of Saskatchewan because of this revenue sharing agreement, and said that taxes will have to be raised in Saskatchewan in order not to cut back services. Premier Bennett of British Columbia, according to an article in the Ottawa Citizen, said that although he will not increase provincial taxes in 1977, there will be a reduction in certain services. Indeed the key words in this bill are "revenue sharing". No longer is the government talking about "cost sharing"; rather it is talking about changes in its bookkeeping practices so the huge expenditures that are foreseen over the next five years in health care costs, for example, will show up on provincial ledgers instead of on its own.
This bill in the simplest terms represents a "take it or leave it" offer to the provinces and, as we have seen, the provinces, seeing nothing more equitable or sensitive to their needs on the horizon, took it. This "take it or leave it" aspect of the bill which the provinces were faced with also describes the situation that parliament, and in particular the opposition, finds itself in with respect to this legislation. This has been dealt with very adequately by the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.
The leader of the New Democratic Party, in a rather peculiar speech last Friday, said that the official opposition was supporting this bill and was doing so because of some perverse desire to increase the financial difficulties of the poorest regions and provinces of Canada. This criticism, besides being unjustified and unfair, fails to appreciate the difficulty we in the opposition are faced with every time this kind of legislation, representing the result of months of feder-

February 21, 1977
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements al-provincial negotiation, is presented in this House. One wonders what possessed the leader of the NDP to come to the conclusion that he did. Since his party's popularity remains at 16 per cent, one wonders why he spends time flailing away in his speeches at the Conservative party instead of dealing with the merits of the bill or its shortcomings, as he sees them.
Like the provinces in so many cases when dealing with this particularly parsimonious government, we too in the opposition are faced with a "take it or leave it" proposition. To accept this bill is to accept that which we feel is far from perfect, and moreover that which we, if we were in the government, would never force the provinces to accept. But to oppose it unconditionally would leave us in a similarly tenuous position, for quite obviously, this bill represents a development in Canadian politics and in the Canadian constitutional system that has far-reaching consequences for the institution of parliament and parliament's relevance to the country.
My party's former leader, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), said recently in Edmonton that the House of Commons is the only truly national forum in Canada, made up of citizens from all walks of life and regions in this vast country. Yet despite this the House of Commons has had little, if any, influence upon this bill or upon the entire constitutional debate that has gone on in the country, particularly since the present Prime Minister headed the government in 1968. I believe that this is one of the most important reasons for the failure of that particular debate which ended in the rejection of the Victoria charter, and it is why I feel that the Prime Minister's expressed desire to repatriate the constitution before an amending formula is adopted will similarly end in failure. Such far-reaching discussions cannot be carried on solely at the executive and bureaucratic level without any input from the ordinary representatives of the Canadian people in the House of Commons and in the provincial legislatures.
Professor Donald Smiley has called the process in which the Prime Minister, or the finance minister, or the minister of health and welfare, meet with their provincial counterparts and with senior bureaucrats "executive federalism".
Bill C-37 is another example of what amounts to federal-provincial diplomacy, with the House of Commons serving as little more than a rubber stamp to ratify what could be described as a treaty between foreign governments.
This whole process of executive federalism, of dealing with the constitutional system of the country at only the highest and, in most cases, the most remote levels of government, belittles the House of Commons, renders the opposition meaningless, and contributes to a sense of the high-level confrontations between political stars which heighten rather than reduce the centrifugal forces inherent in federal systems of government.
It is this point, the habit of the present government to play one region against another to its own advantage, that I want to discuss this evening. As a federal politician coming from western Canada I feel that I would be remiss in my duty to my

constituents and to my colleagues here in the House of Commons if I were not to bring to the attention of the government, as I did, the feeling which does exist in western Canada with respect to the state of affairs we find in our national government.
It is very easy to dismiss this feeling of hostility as the manifestation of grievances against a remote government in Ottawa which has very little electoral support in the west. What one sees, however, is a turning of this grievance away from criticism of the Liberal government to a criticism of Confederation itself. As I have pointed out, up to this point the talk on western separatism has been shallow and confined to a few malcontents, but it is disturbing to a federal member of parliament and to a member of a party which stands for a strong and united Canada in which regional and cultural differences are enriched through contacts established across the entire country to witness the emotional response such separatist talk elicits in many people.
Politicians and academics tend to underestimate the value and power of symbols in the political culture of a country. Unfortunately for those who espouse the federalist ideal, the symbols which are associated with that ideal are in many regions of the country being weakened and attacked as irrelevant, or even harmful to the legitimate aspirations of the citizens in those particular regions.
It is difficult to fix blame for this because the problem is so complex and ambiguous, but surely the role of the federal government is not to exacerbate such feelings of discontent within Confederation because of its fiscal inflexibility, its stubborn refusal to amend policies which offend particular regions-such policies as transportation in the west, or perhaps cable television within the province of Quebec and elsewhere- and its attempt to dump on to the provinces, as my friend, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather), would say, the fiscal burden to provide for programs that it in previous years initiated.
As my party's leader pointed out in opening this debate this bill does not represent the real meaning of Confederation but rather the means by which our federal system is operated. But what is important in this bill is not so much the revenue-sharing agreement between the provinces and the federal government but the manner by which this bill was conceived-in bureaucratic isolation, imposed upon the provinces, and then presented as an accomplished fact to parliament for its cursory approval.
1 want to joint in the statements made by my leader in opening this debate, and I urge upon the government during the remainder of its mandate to regard its federal-provincial relationships from a substantially different viewpoint than it has taken up to this time. Unless this happens we are going to suffer difficulties until the next election, but I can assure hon. members that after the next election a Conservative government will pay fair and reasonable attention to the regions of our country, to the betterment of the whole.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
February 21, 1977


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, as have all hon. members of this House, I have been very interested over the course of the last several hours to listen to the important debate which has been taking place with respect to federal-provincial fiscal arrangements. I welcome this opportunity to say just a few words in the discussion this evening, partially at least in response to some of the rather provoking commentary which we have just heard from my friend, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn). At the outset it might be useful to set the record straight. The water has been substantially muddied by what has been said in the last few moments.
Before the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar got into his substantive comments about the legislation and some of his concerns as a westerner, he began with a rather gratuitous and unnecessary preamble which, I am sorry to say, emphasized two rather familiar and unfortunate Conservative themes, divisiveness and confrontation. The hon. member spoke about divisiveness in Canada, and in the early part of his remarks he went back some 15 years in our history and made the general accusation that somehow the Liberal party had criticized the Diefenbaker administration for giving too much to western Canada. That allegation is rather nonsensical. In terms of regional disparity and alienation in western Canada those problems only grew worse during the years 1958 to 1962; they did not improve.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ralph Goodale: In fact, despite the largest majority given to any prime minister, let alone a western prime minister, they did not improve. Western problems festered very much during those years. They received a lot of lip service, but precious little action.
After dwelling on that red herring, the previous speaker went on to make some comments about confrontation with the provinces. With regard to that matter I ask him to look particularly at his own province-which is mine as well-and look at the actions of the Blakeney provincial administration. That is getting pretty close to home for both of us. In relations with Saskatchewan I suggest that if there is confrontation in our federal-provincial dealings, it begins with Mr. Blakeney.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ralph Goodale: Hon. members opposite laugh, but it is interesting to note that the Conservatives in Saskatchewan seem to approve of the Blakeney brand of politics. Let us consider the present provincial Conservative leader, Mr. Collver. He avoids confrontation, all right; he capitulates.
The potash controversy in Saskatchewan has been a very important subject to people there for many months. The provincial government proposes to nationalize that very important industry. The Conservative party there avoided confrontation with Mr. Blakeney's government; it did literally nothing in the legislature or outside the legislature to prevent the passage of legislation in the province of Saskatchewan which would, in effect, nationalize this particular resource industry in western
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Canada. The Tory formula for avoiding confrontation is capitulation, and I do not think anyone in this country would adopt that philosophy, let alone anyone from western Canada. So much for the hon. member's rather unworthy abuse heaped upon this administration! It simply cannot be supported by the facts.
If hon. members want to consider some real facts about western alienation and about the effective efforts which have been made and continue to be made to satisfy the legitime aspirations of westerners, I ask hon. members to think of an industry in western Canada which is fundamental to our way of life, fundamental to our economy and fundamental to our economic health. I refer to the grains industry of western Canada. It can be examined and seen as a useful, constructive, and positive example of what federalism in this country can achieve for a region such as western Canada.
As 1 say, nothing can be more fundamental to western aspirations and western well-being than a healthy and vibrant grains economy. You do not have to go back too far in the history of this country, only to the late 1960's, to find a period of time in western Canada when the grains economy was in real trouble, not in trouble because of any fault of the farmers in the west. They were doing what they do better than anyone else anywhere in the world, that is, to produce top quality grains and oil seeds. The problem was in marketing and in grain prices around the world. We found prices that were skidding steadily downward, and grain markets that were getting tighter and tighter. At that time the government of Canada began to respond with a series of important initiatives which have continued over the last six or seven years and which have led to a remarkable improvement in the health and the prospects for continued health for the grains industry in western Canada.
We can think, first of all, of such things as expanded credit facilities and long-term government guarantees for the Canadian Wheat Board to assist in the pursuit of new markets. We can think of such things, for example, as vigorous Canadian efforts to break into the world's barley markets where we had never seriously been before 1970. I would mention as well the annual commitment of $10 million toward a new market development fund to enhance our grain marketing opportunities.
New research facilities have been added through the Canada Department of Agriculture, a new crop science division at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, and a protein-oil-starch pilot plant in Saskatoon to help find new ways of processing our grains and oil seeds. We have seen also the development of a two-price wheat program. For 25 years the great clarion call of every prairie politician and every major western farm organization was a demand that the federal government implement a two-price program for western wheat. That program was in fact developed by the present minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) and by this government, and for the past five years it

February 21, 1977
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements has been in place, functioning to the advantage of prairie grain producers.
I could mention as well the substantial increases in the level of available cash advances, and broader, more flexible repayment opportunities for producers. I could mention improvements in the timing of Canadian Wheat Board final payments and adjustment cheques; the implementation of the deferred cash ticket option on grain deliveries; the provision of the best available production and marketing information to farmers regularly and early each year well in advance of seeding.
There have been determined efforts, which have been largely successful, to remove the inequities in our system of domestic feed grains marketing to provide farmers with a freedom of choice and to allow our natural production advantages to prevail. We have seen the establishment of a separate marketing pool for malting barley, effective for the 1975-76 crop year; a new quota system; the block shipping system; and the producer election of the advisory committee to the Canadian Wheat Board which is now enshrined in the Canadian Wheat Board Act itself.
A poll has been carried out amongst rapeseed producers regarding their preferred method of rapeseed marketing, and now legislation is before the House to facilitate the voluntary pooling of producer returns from rapeseed sales to provide flexibility and again a freedom of choice.
We have seen the purchase of 6,000 grain hopper cars, with at least 2,000 more on order, to speed the movement of prairie grain to export positions. We have seen a boxcar repair program put into effect; the Mants report on boxcar allocation procedures; the appointment of port co-ordinators for Thunder Bay and Vancouver. Recently we've had the widely respected report of the Snavely Commission on the costs of transporting grain by rail, and soon the Hall Commission report on grain handling and transportation. That report is in its final stages of preparation after months of public hearings and careful deliberations which have established a solid base of credibility and trust for the commission's work.
I would also like to mention that after six years of determined, conscientious work we now have in place the Western Grains Stabilization Plan which commits millions of federal dollars annually to supporting the strength and stability of the western grains economy, a plan which even today is beginning to prove its substantial merit and value to individual grain producers and to the grains economy of western Canada generally, as we see, unfortunately, a weakening trend in world markets and prices, and at the same time costs of production continuing to increase. It is obvious that the Western Grains Stabilization Plan-a plan which was opposed and obstructed at every step by the gentlemen opposite-will, in the course of the next several months, establish clearly and categorically its unparalleled value to western Canadian grain producers.
I suggest that that is a rather impressive "check list" of accomplishments affecting the western Canadian grains industry, an industry which is fundamental to the west, and this tends to belie the kind of negative cynicism which unfortunately we hear expressed so often by the gentlemen across the way.

I should not leave the question of western alienation without reference to a major event which occurred about four years ago and which has yielded tangible results for the west since that time. I am thinking of the Western Economic Opportunities Conference held in Calgary in 1973.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ralph Goodale: The gentlemen across the way do not like to recall that conference, just as they do not like to recall the list of achievements in the grains industry, because they know that their opposition to the items that have affected the grains industry and their skepticism and belittling of the Western Economic Opportunities Conference are not at all to their credit. It only establishes once again that cynicism and pessimism which have the effect, not only in the west but in other parts of the country, of contributing to national disunity and fueling the fires of separatism, of which they take political advantage whenever and wherever they can.
What has resulted from the Western Economic Opportunities Conference is, for example, our railway cost disclosure legislation, the response to another long-standing request of the provinces regarding more direct information from the railways about their costing factors. That legislation is now on our books, something that the gentlemen opposite forget only too easily. They also ingore the establishment of an important federal-provincial consultative institution known as the federal-provincial conference on western transportation involving all the ministers in western Canada with their federal counterpart and all the relevant officials who have been meeting constantly ever since the Western Economic Opportunities Conference to deal with western transportation concerns and to develop a consensus as to how they should be handled. I would mention also Bill C-33, which is on the order paper, dealing with the National Transportation Act, amendments proposed to eliminate largely the long-haul short-haul anomalies which westerners have complained about for so long. It also contains amendments dealing with maximum and minimum freight rates which can be charged by the railways, and provides a mechanism whereby the CTC can police more actively the freight rate tariffs filed by the railways. All of those were items on the table in Calgary in 1973 which the western premiers indicated they wanted rectified, and which are coming forward now for that kind of correction in Bill C-33.
We have seen as well such things as the highways strengthening program in western Canada, the Northlands Agreement, the iron and steel developmental agreement in Saskatchewan, and recognition of a larger provincial role to be played in financial institutions. As I said, hon. gentlemen across the way like to ignore the list.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if it would be possible for the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) to come into the twentieth century and to recognize that it is hon. members on this side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
February 21, 1977


Ralph Goodale: I apologize to the hon. member who has just spoken. I would not want to miss or to ignore her presence in this House. Indeed, as I pointed out in an interjection earlier in the debate, I think her contribution and her speech on this bill earlier today far outshone the rather petty contribution offered by her leader. I think she is to be congratulated for that. It might be that I overlooked the fact that she was here this evening because, during the course of my remarks, she was sitting there rather politely and, I hope, listening, while members around her were making it difficult for anyone to realize she was present.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, to conclude may I point out that the reaction of the gentlemen across the way-


An hon. Member:: There, you said it again.


Ralph Goodale: I am sorry, I mean "gentlemen." The hon. lady reacted in a much different way. The reaction of hon. members, with the exception of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), this evening is unfortunately all too typical of the things which so sadly and tragically contribute to the disunity of this country. I was hoping that the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar would offer some change in that. He made some remarks of substance toward the end of his speech, but I regret that he began with such a negative and cynical preamble when his remarks could otherwise have been helpful to the House.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on the bill, but first I should like to say that in my time in this House I have never witnessed twenty minutes of greater insecurity than has been exhibited by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale).
I should like to speak about the bill in general terms. The specifics have been dealt with by others, most notably the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). The bill is really a fait accompli. We are debating something that we do not have much control over in this House other than to voice criticisms and concern. I should like to spend my time, as did the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn), talking about Canada-what I think we should look to in Canada, and do it in as honest and in as non-partisan a manner as I can.
The problems of this country that people outside this chamber are talking about are very important to all of us. 1 think it is high time the House of Commons dealt with the central problem, that is, Canada vis-a-vis Quebec.
As an example, Mr. Speaker, Quebec has said she will boycott a federal-provincial communications conference this month. This is disturbing to most Canadians. A writer and historian of some note, Mr. Bruce Hutchinson, has said that Canada has entered the most dangerous and decisive years of its life. I believe that to be true. My great fear is that separation will come about unless we are prepared to make concessions and compromises.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
What can Canadians do? I suppose not too much individually, but collectively we can do a great deal. I firmly believe that the country still belongs to the people and not to the politicians. In fact the response from the rest of Canada will help determine how the people of Quebec will respond to the most important question in our history. As Canadians we can remain objective, cool of head and willing to explore all avenues open to us to have Quebec remain in Confederation. At the same time I think it can be a positive exercise because we can be taking the steps to form a new and even better country than we have had.
I think it should be clear that despite what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), editorialists, and others have said- and this is my opinion-the question of Quebec will be decided in that province and not in the rest of the country. The unfortunate part, for a person viewing the situation outside the province of Quebec, is that the Quebec premier is at centre stage at the present time. He has it all to himself to espouse his particular theories. Premier Levesque will certainly make very forceful arguments for leaving Confederation. In my opinion the problem is that at this time there is no federalist Quebecer with equal status to challenge his arguments. The federalist argument for Quebec staying within Canada can be made equally as strong as those of the premier, in my opinion. At the present time there is a vacuum in Quebec, however, and people are not making that argument. The provincial Liberals are a spent force; they are leaderless and, to a certain extent, are without direction. The other major party, the Union Nationale, has experienced a certain upsurge of popularity but I do not think that will continue because I believe the base for its support, especially among the young people, may be too narrow.
As Canadians we must all start talking to the people of Quebec and not to the elected government of Quebec. I feel if we are to survive as a nation we will have to maintain the country as we presently know it. Canada can only be viable if that "sea to sea" concept brought about by the Fathers of Confederation some 110 years ago is kept foremost in our minds. It is time to stop hoping that the problems will resolve themselves. We see a lot of that in various parts of the country-the idea that if we do not look they will just go away. All of us in Canada must decide very quickly where we stand on the whole question of the Quebec-Canada confrontation.
The desire of French Canada to protect its own culture and way of life is not very different from the desire of the prairie farmer and the maritime fisherman to protect their unique communities, nor is it different from the desire of Canada's native peoples to protect their land and cultures. All these groups are threatened by powerful centralizing forces of the Canadian economy and by the prejudices of the Canadians. We need more understanding on the part of all Canadians if we are to preserve a united Canada. But understanding alone will not be enough to solve this problem. Governments, both federal and provincial, must actively resist the concentration of power and wealth in the centre. Canadians in general must be

February 21, 1977
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
prepared to pay the cost in dollars and cents of a united country which sees itself from coast to coast as one Canada.
If we look at the problem from a positive point of view, which very few of us have done, the people of Quebec have presented to the rest of Canada, possibly without knowing it and certainly without meaning to, an opportunity to build a strong and more unified country.
There are some English-speaking Canadians, unfortunately a growing number, who view the bilingual nature of Canada not as a source of pride but as an annoying condition that somehow must be removed. They would welcome the departure of Quebec and the breakup of Canada. There are French speaking Canadians who have lost faith in the rest of Canada and urge separation. I believe that the majority of Canadians in both cultures have retained a spirit of good will toward their neighbours and have a desire to make Confederation work.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Burnett Murta: Those of us who share this belief must ask ourselves some simple questions. First, is there a risk of Canada's breaking up? Obviously, judging by what I and others have said, the answer is yes, there is a risk of Canada's breaking up.
Second, will a recognition of the fact that Canada is a country with two major languages help to unite the country? The answer is, hopefully, yes. I say hopefully, because at times there has not been much hope of this being the case. But we are looking to that fact to be a stronger uniting force. Along with the recognition of two languages and cultures must go the recognition of many other communities and ways of life.
Third, is the cost of this recognition in money and petty annoyances worth paying? This question is crucial, a question all Canadians must answer. Bilingual labels in supermarkets, signs in French at airports, and French television and radio involve no more than a very small percentage of our gross national product. Surely if we believe in Canada, this is a small cost to pay. Fikewise, turning a box of cornflakes around in order to read the English is not too large a gesture to make for the unity of Canada.
But there is a larger cost, that being the recognition of the many disparities in Canada not only between the founding cultures, but throughout the country. I believe earlier attempts at unity failed because they ignored diversity in favour of a highly centralized national policy which used tariffs and railways as its chief instruments. This policy shaped a nation with an industrial heartland feeding on the raw materials of the regions of the country. The results, of course, were obvious-a concentration of jobs and people in a few large centres, a lack of processing and manufacturing in many of the resource regions of the country and, most important, a large group of people who did not enjoy the natural benefits which Confederation ought to bring.

This policy of inequality has contributed to the unhappiness in French Canada and also created great strains for the rest of Canada. In particular those living in the prairies, the mari-times and Northwest Territories feel aggrieved and not part of the action. People in these areas feel that Canada does not and never did make economic sense.
The truth is, Canada exists because the people of the country want it to exist, because it embraces values not found anywhere else in the world. It exists not because of economic realities, but despite those realities.
As we in the prairies see it, the bargain struck at Confederation was that tariffs set by the federal government would protect Canadian industries in central Canada against international competition. At the same time transportation policies formulated by the federal government would allow the regions, the west, northern Canada and the maritimes, to get their products outside, to be sold, and to get the manufactured goods they needed.
This bargain has never really worked. Power and wealth have concentrated in central Canada, while in the hinterland there has grown a feeling of injustice and inequity. Confederation was supposed to require everyone to make concessions and sacrifices in order to make the country succeed. Successive federal governments have followed the policy which says that those outside central Canada should suffer most.
Westerners continue to be alarmed by attempts to change Confederation. They want assurances, as do those living in the maritimes, that because they want to live and work in what they consider as special areas, or places, they will not be penalized for doing so.
The future of Canada will only be secured when all Canadians can be assured that the burdens and advantages of Canada will be shared equally. That is the central point to which we must address ourselves if we are concerned about our longterm future as a country.
I think that we, in this country, have reason to be optimistic. I say I think; I hope I am right. I hope we may be on the threshold of a new era of Canadian confederation, an era marked by greater awareness of provincial and regional needs and sensitivities, greater respect for the diversity of culture and heritage which characterizes the various parts of this country and, in the not too distant future, by a better balance as between the centre and periphery of the country. This is the concept for which we must strive, in both official languages, and all regions. We must be united in the knowledge that Canada is unique among the nations of the world and must be preserved. We must keep in mind that Canada is more, much more than just dollars and cents.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that I and, I think, other members of this House, were greatly moved by the speech which the hon. member for Fisgar (Mr. Murta) has just concluded. All of us agree with him when he says that if Canada means anything as a country, it is as a country which stretches from sea to sea, and that it is inconceivable that the country should be less than
February 21, 1977

that. Indeed, if any one part of Canada, including Quebec, were to leave Confederation, it is highly unlikely that the rest of Canada would continue to exist as a country.
We face tremendous problems, not the least of which is the question of language and culture. But we are not the only country facing that kind of difficulty. In virtually every other democratic country in which more than one language is spoken, the same kind of difficulty has arisen. I am sure hon. members know of the tremendous difficulties which have arisen in recent years in Belgium, where two languages are spoken. I am sure hon. members know that in Spain, which has been a country a lot longer than Canada, there are various regions; in one region, the Basque region, the people not only talk a different language but are sometimes prepared to fight violently for a separate state. Great Britain has been a united country for hundreds of years, but there is now talk of Scotland separating.
The difficulties we face are difficulties other countries have faced. If we are to survive as a country, as I believe we can and must, we shall have to address ourselves to those problems which have exacerbated the difficulties, the differences as between languages and cultures.
This is no time to be introducing a bill of the kind before us. We ought to examine the facts. What is the main fact? The bill we are considering can only exacerbate the differences between the provinces and the federal government, can only exacerbate the differences between the government of Quebec-no matter which party is in power-and the federal government, and by extension, the people of Canada as a whole. It is for that reason, as our leader indicated last Friday, that we in the New Democratic Party oppose this bill. That is why we express our surprise that the official opposition is going along with it, reluctantly but nevertheless supporting it. If every provincial government-Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Social Credit and Parti Quebecois-expressed opposition to the federal government's proposals as embodied in this bill, we feel we ought to as well, and in fact will be voting against it.
We have been told by the government that this bill embodies the agreement reached between the provinces and the federal government. In fact it embodies an agreement imposed on the provinces by the federal government. The provincial governments oppose the major provisions of this bill. We challenge the government to table the transcript of the proceedings and discussions that took place between the federal government and the provincial governments at the first ministers' meeting. That would prove, as has been indicated by members of this party and the official opposition, and as government members know, that the provinces did not voluntarily agree to the proposals included in this bill.
This bill destroys important fundamental principles and rights which Canadians from one end of Canada to the other have had for almost 20 years. A basic foundation was available to all Canadians, regardless of the province in which they live, for post-secondary education. There was a basic provision for
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements the payment of medical and hospital care. Under the old arrangement, Ottawa paid 50 per cent of the cost of postsecondary education, medical care, and hospital insurance.
Let me stop for a moment to give credit to the former Conservative prime minister of this country for the tremendously important role he played in establishing our hospital and medical insurance plans. Hon. members will recall that it was a Liberal government which brought in the first legislation for hospital insurance. However, that legislation required that more than 50 per cent of the provinces with more than 50 per cent of the people had to agree to the program before the federal government would participate in the 50/50 cost-sharing aspects of it. It was a Conservative government which in 1958 removed that requirement, permitting each province, when ready, to choose to enter the hospital insurance plan with the federal government paying half the cost.
Similarly, it was the Conservative government which appointed Mr. Justice Hall to look at the whole problem of medical insurance. It was his report which led to the implementation of a medical insurance plan whereby, as each province instituted a universal medical insurance plan, the federal government would pay 50 per cent of the cost. That was implemented by a Liberal government, but it was urged, if not forced, on that government by the Hall commission recommendation.
Under the provisions of those two plans, it did not much matter to Canadian citizens from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from the American border to the Arctic ocean where they lived. There were some advantages or disadvantages between provinces and territories depending on how the provincial share of each plan was financed. Essentially, however, the people of Canada no longer had to worry about the tremendous costs of medical and hospital care.
One need only look to the United States. It is not only the poor people there who suffer because they do not have our kind of medical or hospital insurance. People in the middle income bracket may have to use their entire income and be forced to sell their homes because they have hospital and medical bills in the thousands of dollars. That fear has disappeared for Canadians because of the medical and hospital insurance plans which we have.
That 50/50 cost-sharing, as well as the extra which the federal government has paid to the have-not provinces, will disappear under the provisions of this bill. As the cost goes up for hospital care, medical care and post-secondary education, and as the federal government reduces its share of the payments for these programs, as it will have the right to do under this and other legislation, the provinces will be faced with some very difficult, unpopular, and unpalatable choices.
The provinces will have to reduce the level of service they have been providing. Fewer young people will be able to attend our universities and community colleges. There will be less of a guarantee of payment for hospital care. People will not receive the same kind of service from their doctors. Either all that will happen or the provinces will have to increase their fees. University fees will have to be increased substantially. It will

February 21, 1977
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
be necessary to implement a deterrent fee for those entering hospital. It will be normal for people to have to pay a charge to see their doctor.
All these basic and fundamental rights which the citizens of Canada have had for the past 25 years will disappear to a large extent. They will be removed as a result of the thinking of the federal government which is embodied in this legislation. Because of what is happening, the provinces did not want to accept the deal which the federal government proposes and which they in fact accepted only because they had no alternative.
The provinces had no choice but to agree because the pressure of the dateline meant that in the absence of an agreement the federal government would be in a position to act unilaterally. We know this deal was accepted only reluctantly by the provinces. We believe the provinces were blackmailed by the federal government, that they were forced into it and that the arrangements will have a particularly bad effect on the disadvantaged provinces-including Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Quebec, the province about which we have heard so much.
Let me pause for a moment to say, again, that though we have heard so many speeches on the subject, so much good will expressed for the people of Quebec, when it comes to hard cash, that province along with the other six have-not provinces will, as a result of this agreement, in the next five years get substantially smaller payments than it would have received had the old agreement simply been extended. We believe this is a bad agreement. It should be opposed on the grounds that the people of Canada are entitled to a continuation of programs which guarantee them certain basic services, such as hospital insurance, medical insurance, and post-secondary education.
Along with post-secondary education, hospital insurance, and medical insurance, this bill deals with two other aspects of financial arrangements between the federal government and the provinces. It provides for equalization payments and for revenue-guarantees. Let us consider the revenue guarantee.
In 1971, when the federal government brought in tax reform, the share of new tax revenue accruing to the provinces was reduced. To make up for this, and to allow the provinces to make the necessary changes in their other sources of revenue to compensate, the federal government initiated the revenue guarantee program which was to last for five years (1972-1976). It agreed to pay to the provinces the shortfall between what they were currently receiving in income tax and what they would have been receiving prior to tax reform.
After the program was underway, the then minister of finance, John Turner, said he would consider continuing the guarantee program. This makes sense-particularly when you consider that by ending the straight 50-50 sharing of costs under the expensive health and post-secondary education programs, the federal government was shifting a potentially heavier burden onto the provinces.

We know from the discussion which has taken place with regard to both the hospital and medical insurance plans that what the federal government proposes to pay for the next four years amounts to tens of millions of dollars less than it would have paid under the 50-50 cost-sharing program. We know already that the indexed federal payments, while rising in relation to the GNP and the growth in tax revenues, will not be large enough to make up 50 per cent of the cost of the programs. Surely if the provinces have to finance the risks of new programs, they should have the tax base available to them in 1971.
Then in April, 1976, the federal government announced that it was ending the revenue guarantee program and that, in addition, it was reducing the payments to the provinces for the last three years of the program-1974, 1975 and 1976. This meant that, to use 1976 as an example, the 10 provinces would be receiving not $1,600 million in payments, but only $900 million.
The provinces argued that, to make up for the end of the revenue guarantee, the federal government should transfer to the provinces four personal income tax points. A personal income tax point varies in value from province to province; in some, it is worth as little as $4 a head, in others it is as much as $10 a head.
The federal government offer eventually accepted was one personal income tax point and cash equivalent to another. This means, according to federal estimates, that the provinces will be receiving in 1977, $400 to $460 million, instead of the $900 million received under the revenue guarantee. Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Might I ask the acting government House leader what the business is for tomorrow?


Ralph Goodale: It would be our intention to continue debate on the subject matter presently before the House until the discussion can be concluded. If discussion on Bill C-37 continues for some considerable length of time tomorrow we would expect to move on to the legislation dealing with human rights and try to conclude that debate.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
February 21, 1977

[Stage Direction]
Mir. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): Mr. Speaker, on Friday, November 19, 1976, as reported in Hansard on page 1186, I put a question to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) relating to two issues which were unresolved when parliament considered and passed Bill C-52 during the last session. That was a bill which had to do with the many superannuation plans which came under the aegis of the federal government. The question I put to the minister speaks for itself, so I think I shall place it before the House again tonight:
In view of the fact that it is unfair to many retired RCMP and Armed Forces personnel to have their pensions frozen until age 60, will the minister consider this issue? Also, in view of the fact that it is unfair to the widows of many public servants, RCMP, Armed Forces and other personnel not to receive pensions at all because their marriages took place after the date the deceased husband was put on pension, will the minister consider this issue, and indeed, does he plan to make a report to the House on both these issues as soon as possible?
The President of the Treasury Board was very considerate in his reply. He took note of the two issues-indeed, he said he was already aware of them-and said he hoped within a reasonable time to be able to say something about them. I welcome his presence here tonight and I hope he will have a favourable response.
May I say a word with respect to the first issue, that of the indexing of the pensions of retired RCMP and Armed Forces personnel. When the indexing of pensions of federal employees was first brought in and fixed at age 60, it did not seem completely unreasonable to apply that age to these two groups as well. But later on an arrangement was made whereby some public servants could get the indexing of their pensions at age 55, and that being the case it seems to me that the position of retired RCMP and Armed Forces personnel has to be reconsidered. There are persons who complete their term of duty, who are retired at a time when it is difficult to pick up other employment, and to have their pensions frozen when pensions of other persons who work for the government are being escalated seems to me to be quite unfair.
We have been over the arguments many times. My concern tonight is not to take time to restate the arguments but to hear what the minister has to say.
The other point which I raised as a leftover from the last session has to do with the case of widows of all the various categories that I named where the marriage took place after the retired employee concerned went on the pension. 1 had something to say about this the other day during the debate on human rights when we were discussing equality between men and women. It seems to me that there is something basically unfair between widows when in the one case a widow gets the pension and in the other case she does not. Sometimes the marriage in the second case lasted longer than in the first case. Again there are arguments both ways, and we have been over them many times. My concern is that this unfairness be rectified.
Adjournment Debate
I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that I am raising this issue at a time when there are some persons in the country, some agencies and newspapers, who are compaining against the indexing of public service pensions at all. I regard that as irresponsible. What is wrong today is not that only the pensions of some persons are indexed; what is wrong is that indexing of pensions has not been extended to everyone.
In my view the campaign against the indexing of public service pensions is just an attempt on the part of certain private employers and financial interests to fend off the day when they will have to do it too. I suggest that there is real merit in the statement made by Dr. Noel Hall in his report on railway pensions to the effect that unless private pension plans can meet this issue of keeping pension plans up to date with the cost of living, they will find that they do not fill the bill, and their place will have to be taken by a wider use of pensions, such as the Canada Pension Plan. However, we are not discussing that issue tonight-unless the minister wants to make a definitive announcement on it.
I should like to hear from the minister on the question of pensions of retired Armed Forces and RCMP personnel, from the time they retire until they reach age 60, and on the position of widows of the category that I have described.! thank the minister for being here tonight and 1 look forward eagerly to what he has to say.
Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Hn. member has indicated his non-support for Mr. Colin biown and people like him and their attitude toward indexed pensions. I did give some indication to the hon. member, as did my predecessor, that his views would be given full consideration. The situation is the same as it was when I replied in November.
As the hon. member knows, there is considerable interest in the whole question of indexed pensions. I stated in this House, I believe in December-and I confirm my statement-that I was interested in commissioning an independent actuarial analysis of the indexing of federal employee pension plans to test, check, and confirm the information. We now have to satisfy, I believe, the concerns being expressed by certain people, and I have to say that until we get that confirmation or the results of that and certain other studies which are under way related more to the private pension sector, namely, the studies being undertaken by the Department of Finance and the Department of National Health and Welfare, it is not our intention to make moves, at least for a few months.
With regard to the situation particularly associated with the Armed Forces and the RCMP issue which the hon. member raised, the hon. member may recall that during consideration of the Statute Law, (Superannuation) Amendment Act early last year by the Joint Committee of the House of Commons and the Senate on Employer-Employee Relations in the Public Service a number of requests were made for changes and improvements in the survivor benefits payable under the Superannuation Acts to spouses of public servants and members of the Armed Forces and the RCMP.

February 21, 1977
Adjournment Debate
There was an agreement at that time that these requests would be considered in light of the impending federal human rights legislation which will deal, among other things, with discrimination in pension plans. There has been some comment that the provision of spouses' benefits is regarded by some as constituting discrimination in favour of married employees over single employees and, as a result, it will be necessary to review all aspects of survivor benefits once the human rights legislation is in place.
Once again I have to seek the hon. member's patience. These concerns will be very seriously dealt with, but they will probably not result in changes until a review is completed, which I hope will not be too long in taking place.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall be asking the question again.


TRANSPORT-POSSIBILITY OF CONTINUED ASSISTANCE TO FLOUR SHIPMENTS THROUGH ATLANTIC PORTS
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) went to Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, and there conferred with the three premiers of the maritime provinces regarding transportation matters. It was that meeting, a meeting of what I regard as the other type of parliament, which brings us together this evening. I asked a question of the Minister of Transport upon his return here-and I was backed by my colleague, the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall)-as to whether there was any discussion about the "at and east" subsidies, those subsidies provided by section 272 of the Railway Act with regard to the movement of flour and grain.
This is a very substantial issue, as it affects the ports of Halifax, Saint John, and some of those on the St. Lawrence River system. It is a substantial matter as it affects the flour industry in Ontario and Quebec. I told the Minister of Transport that if Bill C-31,-a piece of inequity which, thank God, has not yet been presented-is presented, it will meet a storm of protest.
I asked the minister if this had been discussed with the three premiers and, if so, with what result. He skated around that issue. I suspect that the Charlottetown conference did not consider whether Bill C-31 would be presented to the parliament of Canada.
It is all fine and dandy for the Minister of Transport or any other minister to meet with the premiers in my part of the world, for they enjoy a feast of publicity and the fact that there is no debate whatsoever until one can get one's hands at the throats of these people in either parliament or in the legislatures in which they speak. For a day or so they enjoyed the fact that they had apparently made some important decisions, and we who are the representatives of Atlantic Canada were discomforted by the fact that we had no quick means of finding out actually what their estimable honours really achieved at that Charlottetown conference. We still do not know with regard to Bill C-31. We do not know whether the
[Mr. Andras.J
premiers of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, who might have been thinking about the ports of Halifax and Saint John, put up any kind of fight at all on behalf of the "at and east" subsidies for the ports of Halifax and Saint John. I rather suspect that they did not. I do not know why they would not have, but nothing that I have read in the communiques from that conference suggests to me that the plight of the longshoremen, the freight handlers and the stevedors of Saint John and Halifax had very much to do with the conference which took place in Charlottetown, so I raise it here. I am sorry to be late with it, but I did operate under the rules of the House. I brought it before the minister as quickly as I could and I brought it up for debate in the House at this time as quickly as I could. In any event, Bill C-31 has not yet been presented to us for debate. When it is, the minister will know that there will be a very sharp debate on it indeed.
We have various subsidies in the field of transportation. Subsidies are provided by acts relating to movement of freight in Atlantic Canada. There are subsidies on the St. Lawrence Seaway, subsidies on the Welland Canal, subsidies on the grain movement on the prairies, subsidies involving the Crows-nest Pass rates, and undoubtedly there are other subsidies as well. So when the minister decided that something must be done about subsidies, he decided to tackle the poorest of the poor. This is what irks us in Atlantic Canada more than anything else. If he starts some bold, new march to some bold, new transportation horizons, why does he pick on the poorest part of Canada?
If the minister has the temerity to present Bill C-31 dealing specifically with the ports of Halifax, Saint John, and a few other ports before he tackles other larger subsidies in the Canadian transportation scene, he will find himself in a fight. We have done it twice now. First, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) and myself alternately on the late show brought up the issue last year, and then with respect to Bill C-87 regarding the restraint program we knocked it out. If now he dares to bring it back a third time in this parliament, he will know that we have had it and it is going to be fought. Also, the Minister of Transport will find that it will not only be the members for Halifax fighting for the ports of Saint John and Halifax and certain ports in Ontario as well as the milling industry. He will find other members on this side of the House who will fight that battle as well. I think he would be well advised not to consider proceeding with Bill C-31 in this session of parliament.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) mentioned, it is an important issue. The minister has received various representations from different associations in this regard, and he has also received many representations from hon. members on this side of the House.
I welcome the opportunity to reiterate the government's position on continued assistance to flour shipments throught Atlantic ports.
February 21, 1977

It is true that Bill C-31 proposes to repeal section 272 of the Railway Act, and thus eliminate a subsidy for export grain and flour via Atantic and east coast ports. This subsidy was largely an indirect payment to the milling industry because it froze the freight rates.
By repealing section 272 of the Railway Act and replacing the hidden subsidy with a direct payment to the milling industry we remove unnecessary distortions in the transportation network. Since we have an understanding with the milling industry on a flour assistance program which will come into effect once section 272 has been repealed, there is no reason to believe that Atlantic ports will suffer.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the whole question of grain transportation has been discussed with the Canadian Wheat Board, and officials from the Grains Group are now working with the board to consider all transportation options, including the possibility of the movement of grain from the bay ports to the Atlantic seaboard.
This is the essence of the minister's discussion with the Atlantic provinces last week. It is the government's intention to make the best use of transportation dollars, but as recognized by our action on the flour subsidy where regional objectives dictate a departure from a policy of cost effectiveness we will not hesitate to do so. But when a subsidy is paid, it should be made directly and where at all possible it should not distort other variables in the market place such as the transportation system.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we believe that eliminating Section 272 of the Railway Act works in the best interest of national policy, but such things as the flour subsidy and our efforts to assess different options for moving grain to Atlantic ports reflect our sensitivity to the developmental objectives of the Atlantic region, objectives, Mr. Speaker, this government stands firmly behind, as we have demonstrated in the past through many initiatives through DREE amongst other things, and we will continue to demonstrate our commitment in the future.
The Atlantic region, as the hon. member did mention, is different from the other regions in the country and requires special consideration. This difference has been embodied in the objectives and principles of our new national transportation policy-a policy development in which the Atlantic region was closely involved, particularly at the provincial level.


MANPOWER-CANADA WORKS PROGRAM-SUGGESTED CREATION OF SPECIAL FUND FOR RECYCLING OPERATION
Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to follow two such distinguished questioners in the adjournment debate this evening, as well as the respondents.
On February 15 I directed a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) regarding some of the problems in the new Canada Works program. I feel that when this program was initiated the department should have allowed itself almost a year to rethink the things that had gone
Adjournment Debate
wrong with the Local Initiatives Program and to consider all the changes necessary when shifting from what was at one time an innovative scheme of local initiatives, to direct incentive job creation, which is something quite different. Time was not found for reconsideration, however; quite the opposite.
The second allocation to the Local Initiatives Program at the end of 1976 strained the resources of the department to the limit in order to spread around that allocation and get late starting programs off the ground. Almost at the same time there was a call for applications for the new Canada Works program. Yet it carries with it many of the shortcomings of the other program, it seems, in terms of short range developments, insistence on new projects, and hiring people who are unemployed. For many worthy programs this almost forces people into the anomalous position of firing the people they have in order to pick up a grant to hire additional people and thereby qualify for enough funding to keep them going.
It seems to me that in tackling unemployment the federal government should act in conjunction with the municipalities and regional districts, working closely at that level. They have the planners, engineers, foremen and personnel to provide ongoing guidance and supervision. If the federal government must get directly into job creation or direct incentive, it should work through the existing institutions such as the Armed Forces. I am sure everyone was pleased to see the recruiting drive for 5,000 personnel for the Armed Forces. I am sure those jobs can be created far more cheaply than through the Canada Works program or LIP. It is better to put the money into such things as scientific and medical reseach, or even public works, prone as they are to the old misuse of patronage.
The Post Office in the town of Lumby, in my constituency, is a disgrace. We could have embarked on a rebuilding project this winter, and thereby relieved some unemployment. That would have been a worth-while project.
If all this is not sufficient, let me suggest a couple of important areas in which the government could act. One is recycling, the other pollution control. Many jobs could be created in these areas, to good effect, if only the government allowed those jobs to be long-range ones, and if every five or six months it was not necessary to let people go in order to begin new projects. It is difficult to sustain recycling. Private industry has not seemed to come to grips with the question, and it is too big a question for municipal governments to deal with. There are not industries in place which can use the products of recycling. Therefore that is another area in which the federal government could be legitimately involved in job creation.
There is nothing romantic about this proposal. If implemented, it will not lead to pictures being taken of people handing out cheques every time some glamorous new project is begun. But, if accepted, it will mean the development of a crucial program which will save limited resources in an era when the saving of resources has become highly important.

February 21, 1977
Adjournment Debate
I am therefore asking the minister's representative this evening whether, with respect to Canada Works, the department would not consider working through the regional districts or municipal councils. We very much need a constitutional change which will give the municipal level of government a share of tax revenue and an almost sovereign power in disposing of it. Such revenues would have to be provided as of right, and not turned off or on at the whim of senior governments, particularly the federal government. Conscientious municipalities which plan for the long range are confused and often find their programs disrupted by free wheeling advertising which artificially raises hopes, as was the case in the advertising campaign conducted on behalf of Canada Works just one month or so ago.


Mr. Arthur Portelance (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I shall not have enough time to answer all the questions asked by the hon. member this evening. However, in answer to the question of the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston), I would like to say that we should perhaps consider briefly the objectives of the Canada Works program. This program has been established to neutralize cyclical, seasonal and regional unemployment on a permanent basis and throughout the year. The projects must be sponsored essentially by registered and well established organizations, and they must meet the needs of the working force in the community; they should not force people out on the labour market nor impede private initiatives. Finally, and this is the main requirement, the proposed activities should not be dependent in any way on the community.
I am sure the hon. member will understand that to fight unemployment effectively, the persons hired for Canada Works projects should be unemployed. It would be very difficult to determine to what extent the unemployment rate could be lowered by hiring people for these projects who already work for the groups or organizations concerned. The
reason is that we could not pretend these employees were about to lose their jobs. In other words, Mr. Speaker, if we were that flexible in our hiring practices, some would be prepared to wipe out the results we try to get through the Canada Works program by making use of the system.
Let us suppose that a sponsor fires employees so that they would be eligible for some Canada Works project as unemployed persons; nothing allows us to believe that once registered with the Canada Manpower Centre, they would necessarily be proposed for that project. When introducing applicants for a job, Canada Manpower Centres take into account the personality and the needs of everyone. In addition, they give priority to those eligible applicants who have been registered for a longer time.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member also indicated that we should examine again the allocation granted to the riding of Okanagan-Kootenay, as was the case with Okanagan Boundary. Mr. Speaker, concerning the riding of Okanagan Boundary, I must say that officials have examined this case to determine whether it had been mistakenly excluded from ridings where projects were eligible for a subsidy to offset high equipment costs. It has since been confirmed that Okanagan Boundary did not meet the eligibility requirements. However, no money allotment has been reconsidered and we do not intend to do so for any riding, for I am convinced that these funds were allocated as fairly as possible, particularly within areas facing high unemployment rates.
Mr. Speaker, I am convinced of the merits of programs which, like the Canada Works Program, create new jobs in areas where they are most needed, because not only will these jobs lower the unemployment rate in these areas, but they will also promote the development of these areas through community betterment projects.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.


END OF VOLUME III