1982-04-01

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Yesterday the Solicitor General in this House rightly condemned Bill C-451, a private member's bill on gun control which has been introduced by his party colleague, the former solicitor general, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand). Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That this House direct the Solicitor General to adopt the motion on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland to initiate a detailed review of firearm control provisions in the Criminal Code by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs so that this committee could conduct hearings across Canada, at which time the public, particularly in rural areas, could give their views and suggestions for necessary changes to the present gun laws which are cumbersome, expensive to administer, and ineffective except to harrass law-abiding people, since currently the criminal code does not restrict the use of firearms by the criminal element.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CALL FOR REDUCTION IN FEDERAL TAXATION-MOTION UNDER
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The Liberal government wants its pound of flesh irrespective of whose blood is shed in the taking. Workers, farmers, businessmen, elderly pensioners, and single women under 65 years of age are being crushed with the extra taxes being imposed because of the national energy policy. A recent 39.2 per cent increase in natural gas prices in my constituency, and I believe elsewhere in Canada, was approved because 16.6 cents per
gigajoule was necessary for gas supply as a result of the national energy policy, and 22.6 cents because of federal taxation. The income tax alone on a comparable revenue of the company increased from $8 million in 1980 to $64 million, including Canadian ownership taxes, in 1981. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper):
That this House recommends that the hon. Minister of Finance and Prime Minister Trudeau cease at once-


Mr. Cousineau:: Order. Rephrase.


Gordon Edward Taylor: All right.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gordon Edward Taylor: I will rephrase as follows:
That this House recommends that the hon. Minister of Finance and the Right Hon. Prime Minister-
Do you mind if I leave out his degrees that he won when I was fighting overseas for democracy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gordon Edward Taylor: I will finish as follows:
-cease at once from filling their own treasure chests and start giving the people of Canada some consideration especially those living in poverty by cutting their take by 50 per cent. Do the cries of hungry kids not move this government at all?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas almost two years ago the Solicitor General returned from a meeting in Washington, D.C. with Simon Wiesenthal, promising that Canada would take long overdue action to bring to justice alleged Nazi war criminals in Canada, and in view of the fact that the Solicitor General has just recently announced that there will be in fact no action taken in Canada against those persons accused of these offences, recognized in

April 1, 1982
the Charter of Rights as crimes against humanity, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle):
That this House urge the government to take speedy action to try in Canada, under accepted principles of criminal justice, those persons against whom evidence exists of the commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity, to make clear on behalf of all Canadians that the passage of time does not in any way erase the enormity of their crimes committed during the holocaust.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CALL FOR REDUCTION OF TAX ON NATURAL GAS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The ability of many Canadians to heat their homes has been threatened by the federal government's taxes on heating fuel. Through its octopus-like grab for power and money it has forced up the price of heating fuel, and subsequently the very cost of living beyond a level that can possibly be borne by northern communities. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources stop playing power broker with people's lives, and immediately reduce the federal tax on natural gas.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Robert Bockstael (St. Boniface):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the Premier of Saskatchewan, Mr. Allan Blakeney, has recently been subjected to hostile and threatening behaviour by several members of the Canadian Union of Public Employees who were ordered back to work by the premier on March 25, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Don Valley East (Mr. Smith):
That this House request the Solicitor General to ask the RCMP to ensure the personal safety of the premier while he is on the campaign trail.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Dresser Industries Canada, Ltd. of Cambridge, which manufactures mobile oil drilling rigs, has this week laid off 55 workers as a result of slumping sales. The jobs of central Canadians and of the employees of Dresser Industries in Cambridge depend upon the Canadian oil and gas industry. Accordingly I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the government be condemned for its National Energy Program, the unfairness of which has not only fostered bitterness and resentment in the minds and hearts of western Canadians, but has caused and will continue to cause unemployment in the manufacturing sector in central Canada which depends heavily upon the prosperity of the oil and gas industry for its success.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the metric system is destined to be fully implemented in Canada during 1983, and the Metric Commission has yet to provide aids to assist disabled or handicapped Canadians to adapt to this conversion program, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson):
That this House requests the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to request the Metric Commission to make available to disabled and handicapped persons metric conversion kits in Braille, taped cassettes, large print, and other necessary aids that will enable those persons to cope with this system on an equal basis with able-bodied Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
April 1, 1982


IMMIGRATION
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) has announced he is bringing 25,000 skilled workers to Canada this year. He says that figure was arrived at in consultation with the provinces and industry. Since these figures were compiled last summer and were based on the megaprojects starting this spring and based on low unemployment rates this year, not on the 1,200,000 people presently unemployed, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer):
That the Minister of Employment and Immigration reconsider these large numbers of skilled workers he wishes to bring to Canada, taking into consideration present economic conditions and the large number of skilled workers now unemployed in Canada because of the government's destructive economic policies.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, the 1982-83 spending estimates show a reduction in funding to Indian bands and associations. As of today funding through the community development program of Indian Affairs in New Brunswick has been cut, with the loss of 15 jobs in that province. Barely two weeks notice was given to Indian leaders. This it just one more example of sloppy fiscal management by the Department of Indian Affairs. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo):
That this House accept the proposal of the National Indian Brotherhood that the Minister of Indian Affairs set up a task force to investigate fully the financial relationship between the Government of Canada and Indian bands.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions


MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, it being April 1, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle):
That the House do today grant its award for best performance in a leading role to the hon. member for Bow River.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


PENSIONS
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That this House calls on the government to make an immediate commitment to introduce before this fall a bill to provide women who work in the home with pensions equivalent to those available under the Canada Pension Plan, such pensions to be available not just to those who could afford to pay a high premium but to all women who work in the home, and this House also calls for the said bill to provide pensions forthwith for women between the ages of 55 and 65 who arc alone and who are not in the labour market, it being the view of this House that the needs of such women should be met without further delay.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF WORLD WAR I FLYING ACES
Madam Speaker:: I would like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of seven World War I flying aces who are visiting Ottawa on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Royal Canadian Air Force.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question, which is directed to the Prime Minister,

April 1, 1982
Oral Questions
relates to the immense economic suffering in the country and the economic impact on Canadians of his government's policies.
The Prime Minister will know that his Minister of Finance has indicated that he is planning further changes to his budget. The Prime Minister will also know that income tax forms are now being circulated, which forms assume taxes which might never be legal. The filing deadline for those income tax forms is April 30.
In order that Canadians will not be required to pay their taxes until they know what those taxes are, I wonder whether the Prime Minister would consider delaying the deadline for filing income tax returns until after the government knows what it is doing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Epp:: That is never!


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, under that reasoning, I would ask them to file their returns now, because the government always knows what it is doing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INQUIRY RESPECTING POSSIBLE TAX CHANGES
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, does the Prime Minister intend that statement to indicate a declaration by the government that there will be no further changes to the budget? Will there be further changes to the budget?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition knows that every tax bill can be amended. Indeed, tax bills frequently are amended when they go to committee. That may happen in the case of these tax bills.
The best advice I can give taxpayers at this time is to file their tax returns, as is the custom, by the usual deadline, based on the fact that the Ways and Means motions tabled at the time of the budget bring taxes into effect on the dates specified in those motions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, we have a situation where the government's own actions, including its announced intention to publish draft bills before it introduces real bills in this House, have created more uncertainty than ever before in Canadian history about what taxes Canadians will be required to pay. I consequently hope that the Prime Minister will reconsider the imposition on Canadian taxpayers and will delay the deadline
for filing income tax forms which reflect taxes which will probably never be legal.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Charles Joseph Clark: Since the Prime Minister is not prepared to offer immediate help to taxpayers, let me ask him a question about unemployed Canadians. The Prime Minister will know that in the mining industry alone it is anticipated that there will be more than
16,000	lay-offs this year, that in the forestry industry alone it has been estimated that there will be some 50,000 lay-offs this year, and that in the automotive-related industry alone it has been estimated that there will be some 60,000 lay-offs this year. Will the Prime Minister tell the House of Commons whether he has any new programs to announce to stop these massive lay-offs in these three industries? '


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I have none to announce today, but I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that in the past weeks and months ministers have been announcing, on a weekly and sometimes daily basis-


An hon. Member:: Very weakly.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -job-creating programs.
In the forestry industry alone, the Minister of Employment and Immigration has negotiated over 400 cases, I believe-


Mr. Huntington:: None of them last. They are temporary jobs.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -of job-creation schemes with provincial governments.
The hon. members opposite talk about pie in the sky. That is not the view of the workers who have signed these agreements.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: How long will those jobs last?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, there are supplementary questions. I wish the hon. member would show more respect for his leader when I am attempting to answer his questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Prime Minister considers it to be an answer to the economic problems of the country when he announces that there will be 400 temporary jobs created in an industry where his policies are causing 50,000 permanent jobs to be lost.
April 1, 1982


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Charles Joseph Clark: Let me
put a supplementary question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. He knows that Statistics Canada yesterday published figures indicating that 1,054,000 Canadians qualified for unemployment insurance benefits in January, and that
396,000	Canadians made new claims in January-the highest figures in the history of the country, in both cases. The minister will know that the budget forecast of unemployment insurance deficits is $1,059 billion. Will the minister tell the House what the increase is in the projected deficit of the unemployment insurance fund; and will he tell the House the size of the increase he is contemplating in the employee contributions to unemployment insurance?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, as was explained in this House before, we calculate the rate of premiums in approximately the third quarter of each year. We then have a much better estimate of what the actual draws upon the fund will be. I have pointed out in this House before that we substantially reduced the premiums for both the employees and the employers last year, down by 15 cents per $100. That was a major reduction in the actual cost, because we had a surplus in the fund. We do not expect a very favourable increase in the fund beyond that increase for the forthcoming year. I would not like to go away out on a limb-


Charles Joseph Clark: You are out on a limb.


Lloyd Axworthy: -as the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is constantly out on. I would first like to have a proper estimate at the proper time when we ascertain the proper figures. 1 say there is no cause for the alarm which the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition always envisages.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


PIPELINES
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Would the minister confirm the recent announcement by his northern pipeline commissioner, the Hon. Mitchell Sharp, that the Alaska pipeline project is again being delayed and will not now be completed until 1988 at the earliest?
Oral Questions


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, 1 have not seen the statement of the northern pipeline commissioner. As the hon. member knows, the commissioner reports to Senator Olson. 1 will inquire and find out what the commissioner has said, and I will be very happy to report to the House when I have a full answer.


CONSTRUCTION GUARANTEES
Dave Nickerson: Madam Speaker, 1 might point out that information to that effect has been circulated to interested members of Parliament by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Madam Speaker, the minister will recall that under the pipeline act and in the treaty with the United States a starting date of January, 1981, was contemplated for this project. That would mean many thousands of jobs in the manufacturing, steel and construction sectors of the Canadian economy. They are really needed in the conditions of unemployment prevailing today, such as those related by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. I would like to ask the minister what has happened to his ironclad guarantees that he gave us two years ago that this project would start on time. What specific measures is he taking to ensure that there will be no further delays and no further loss of job opportunities for Canadians?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend was not in the House two years ago or he would have remembered that one of the points about the ironclad guarantees was when 1 asked, when the Conservative government was in office, that that government provide us with ironclad guarantees before approving the sale of gas to the United States.
We have made representations to the United States administration, as hon. members know. We have obtained a commitment from the President and Congress of the United States to support the project. More than that, we have obtained from the Congress and the United States administration the enactment of all the necessary legislation, to make sure that there will be no legislative obstacle to the implementation of this particular project which is of great importance to our country. We were very happy to see that the administration and Congress of the United States passed those laws. At the present time the negotiations are taking place between the promoters and the United States bankers, to try to raise the necessary financing. I am still hoping that these negotiations in the private sector in the United States will prove conclusive and positive.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: You said ironclad, right from that seat.

April 1, 1982
Oral Questions


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It concerns the takeover today of White Farm Equipment in Brantford by a foreign minority shareholder. TIC of Dallas, Texas, has forced Linamar Machine Ltd., of Guelph, the Canadian majority owner, to sell its control by threatening White Farm with receivership. This would cause a $2.8 million loss to Linamar. In selling, on the other hand, Linamar is apparently making a cool $1.5 million profit. In view of the fact that TIC will permanently shut down White Farm within six to nine months, throwing nearly 1,000 workers in Brantford out of work, can the minister give us his unqualified assurance that under no circumstances will he allow TIC or any other foreign group to take over controlling interest of White Farm Equipment?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, the White Farm Equipment was reopened and hundreds of workers were given new job opportunities because of initiatives taken by this government as well as the Ontario government. We are keeping in close touch with the situation. I can assure my hon. friend that we will use whatever leverage we have under the law to protect the interests of the workers and the community.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: That was not a very strong assurance, but I am going to hold the minister to it anyway.


PATENTS FOR CANADIAN PRODUCED COMBINE
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is to the same minister. In view of the fact that government funding helped to produce the Axleflow Combine, Series 9700, will the minister assure this House that under no circumstances will he allow the patents for this combine to leave the country? Will the minister also assure me that FIRA will use every means at its disposal to block what I consider to be the rape of a Canadian-controlled corporation which is a viable company in an otherwise delicate agricultural market?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I am glad my hon. friend has confirmed that this advanced rotary combine technology which White Farm has, was developed with the support of a federal government program. If I am not mistaken, one of the terms under which the support was advanced was that the technology cannot be
worked outside of Canada without the consent of the government. Certainly my intention is to ensure that this technology remains in Canada to the benefit of Canadian workers and the Canadian economy. At the same time, I have asked for a report from my officials to see what role FIRA can properly play in this matter.
In addition, the terms and conditions under which assistance was given by the enterprise development program to support the reopening of White Farm some months ago involved the necessity of consent if that assistance is to continue under new owners. I want to ensure that those terms and conditions are used to the maximum extent possible to protect the interest of the workers and the community.


POSSIBILITY OF CANADIAN CONTROL
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, when the minister is in discussions with TIC officials tomorrow, as well as Linamar, I hope he will keep in mind what he just said. If all else fails, will the minister assist any other Canadian group, specifically the workers at White Farm in Brantford, to purchase Linamar's controlling interest in White Farm with either government-backed loan guarantees or through direct government funding? I ask this in view of the fact that the government already has a heavy investment of taxpayers' money in that company.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I would be pleased to receive from workers or other Canadian groups any ideas they have to bring about what they consider to be a more suitable development of the company. I will be happy to see what forms of government assistance could facilitate their projects. I would welcome any other ideas that come forward from the workers or others.


PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF AUSTRALIAN MINISTER OF FINANCE AND OF PAKISTAN MINISTER OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Madam Speaker:: I would like to draw attention to the presence in our gallery of Senator, the honourable Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, Minister of Finance, for Australia-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: -and also of Major-General Rao Farman Ali Khan, Minister of Petroleum and Natural Resources, Islamic Republic of Pakistan.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
April 1, 1982


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Now that 1.1 million Salvadorans have shown their preference for voting rather than violence-twice the number that was anticipated to turn out to vote last Sunday-would the minister indicate in what way his government has commended the people of El Salvador for their courageous act, and would he indicate whether we can expect more aid to go to that country from Canada? Further, would he consider inviting the Canadian ambassador to El Salvador to return to Canada so that Members of Parliament and other groups may be briefed in order to understand this tragic situation better?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, before I get to the substance of the answer, perhaps I might be permitted to congratulate the hon. member and his colleague, the hon. member for Fraser Valley West, for their courage in braving the bullets on election day in El Salvador.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark R. MacGuigan: Perhaps I might be permitted to add that the bravest part of that was daring the wrath of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands in going to observe the elections there.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Horton McDermid: How about congratulating the people who voted?


Mark R. MacGuigan: To get to the substance of the question, it is not surprising that the hon. member was not able to count all of those voting on election day. In fact the total is even more impressive than the one which he gave. There were about 1.5 million Salvadorans, three times the number predicted, three times the number who voted in 1972, who cast ballots.
I would indeed like to congratulate the people of El Salvador for the courage they showed in exercising their democratic right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark R. MacGuigan: We are awaiting developments as to what kind of government emerges. Certainly the possibility of Canadian aid is open to that country as part of the tripling of aid to Central America which I announced about a month ago. We will not have a further announcement until such time as the governmental situation is clarified.
Oral Questions CONFLICTING VIEWS


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, since, as we all know, we have in our midst in the House the VicePresident of the Socialist International, who at this moment is meeting with that organization in Bonn, West Germany, an organization that has actively worked on a daily basis with the guerilla groups in El Salvador, would the minister indicate whether he agrees with the Vice-President of Socialist International who called the election "a travesty of democracy", or would he indicate that the President of Mexico was much more accurate when he referred to the line-ups in thousands that turned out to vote as "a beautiful sight" in that country?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, to the best of my knowledge, after the election the only people who have spoken ill of the electoral process in El Salvador were the Socialist International and the hon. member for Oshawa in particular,-


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mark R. MacGuigan: -the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, and the Soviet Union.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In a recent interview with the Ottawa Citizen, The Citizen was advised by counsel for Uranium Canada that on the question of Crown immunity the instructions they were taking, that is the law firm, came from Mr. Gordon MacNabb and also from Mr. Rowley, who is an administrative assistant in the minister's department. In light of the fact that Mr. MacNabb is a party-although not charged-with respect to the conspiracy to fix uranium prices, when will the minister stop shirking his responsibilities and stop being wilfully blind, and when will he give directions to the law firm that it is unfair and indecent that the Crown should be able to be above the law and be allowed to claim Crown immunity in a criminal charge?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has referred to two officials who are members of the board of directors of Uranium Canada. I have told him that I had not given instructions to Uranium Canada, a Crown corporation, in this regard. I do not intend to, and I will not. I cannot be more emphatic than that. I will not interfere with the judicial process, and I will not interfere in the operations of the board of directors of the Crown corporation.


An hon. Member:: You are doing it now.

April I, 1982
Oral Questions


Chris Speyer: I point out to the minister that Uranium Canada has no office other than the offices he occupies, that it has no assets other than nine dollars, and it has no employees. It is a shell corporation. When will he do his duty?


PROPRIETY OF ACTION TAKEN
Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, would the minister please discuss the propriety of a person who is a party to a conspiracy, although not charged as such, giving instructions to a Crown corporation? Will he permit that?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I suggest to the hon. member that my duty and his duty are not to interfere with the judicial process.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Mr. Jack Burghardt (London West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The minister will know that on December 23 of last year he announced a $110 million federal government assistance program for Canadians whose homes contain urea formaldehyde foam insulation. Given the fact that three months have elapsed since the program was announced, without any of the UFFI home owners receiving any tangible benefit from the program-


Mr. Nielsen:: Here comes another announcement.


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: -will the minister advise the House how the program is progressing and when UFFI home owners can actually expect some benefit from the assistance program?


Erik Nielsen: Another announcement.


Walter David Baker: It is cabinet day.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, 1 want to assure the hon. members that the program is going well.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


André Ouellet: Every person who has been registered with the UFFI centre in Ottawa has received an application form.


Erik Nielsen: Oh, good.


André Ouellet: The number of home owners who have already registered with the program, asking for federal aid, is substantial and increasing very heavily on a daily basis.


Mr. Siddon:: How many?


André Ouellet: We expect that half of those who are eligible for grants or for aid from the federal government have already registered.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: How many have received money?


André Ouellet: I welcome this question because indeed it will inform home owners who are affected by this product that they should register in order that they may receive aid from the government.
I want to indicate to the hon. member that we are sending thousands of decimeters to home owners every week for the free test which is offered by the government. Finally, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has already trained 100 inspectors to aid home owners with appropriate technical advice. The government is in the process of establishing a list of reliable contractors who are qualified to do the repair work. As soon as Parliament approves the legislation authorizing payment to the home owners, cheques will be received by them.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. According to reports this week, 600,000 families are now receiving welfare in various parts of Canada, many of them for the first time, and many of them not only because there have been many plant closures but also because they have run out of unemployment insurance benefits. The processing of claims is taking so long that many entitled to unemployment insurance have not received it. Can the minister indicate whether the government proposes any new program to reduce the number of people who are being laid off every week?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member should know, we have already introduced a number of special measures which are now taking effect. We have enrolled over
26,000	workers across Canada in the work-sharing proposal which was brought in just before Christmas, and we have therefore been able to avert close to 12,000 lay-offs because of that program alone. We are signing 50 or 60 agreements per week, so that program has met with a very large response from employers, employees and trade unions. I think this is a very clear example of how we can co-operate with all the major participants in the economic system to ensure that workers are protected during this very difficult period.
At the same time we have introduced a number of initiatives for job creation, particularly in the forestry and fisheries industries. We have invited the provincial governments to work with us in establishing major responses in those areas.
April 1, 1982

Oral Questions


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
[Stage Direction]
I would also like to point out, if I might, that we have taken special measures in the administration of unemployment insurance by establishing special teams to move into areas where demand has increased at a very large rate. As a result of those special measures we have been able to work down the backlogs enough so that we now have a good handle on this particular problem.
So, Madam Speaker, I would like simply-
Madam Speaker:: Order.


David Orlikow: It is obvious that all the programs announced by the minister and other ministers have not had any effect on the fact that the rate of unemployment has gone up every month and will continue to go up.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, I want to ask the minister a question about the waiting period for unemployment insurance. There are reports from various parts of Canada that the waiting period for people registering to get the unemployment insurance benefits to which they are entitled is now running four to eight weeks longer than it did a year ago. The reason for that, apparently, is not just that there are more people making claims but also because last year the minister's department laid off or terminated the employment of all temporary and part-time employees.
Given the fact that there are so many more claims coming in every week, I would like to ask the minister whether it is not time for his department to hire more people so that people who are entitled to unemployment insurance benefits do not have to wait as long as they have, and do not have to go to the cities or provinces to ask for welfare.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member raises a legitimate complaint, it is one I have received myself, and it is one reason I visited some of the areas where the pressure was most severe, British Columbia and parts of the Atlantic provinces. As a result of that we have introduced special adjudication centres and special teams to move from one part of the country to the other. We have brought on parttime people-former unemployment insurance officers-to help relieve the load during this extreme period. The consequence of these measures is that we have substantially reduced the backlog, and I think we now have a handle on the problem.
If, however, members of Parliament are feeling particular pressures in their areas, I ask them to get in touch with me, and we will respond as quickly as we can to provide assistance in those areas. I ask members of Parliament for their cooperation in this matter.


UREA FORMALDEHYDE FOAM INSULATION-QUERY RESPECTING TAXATION OF INSTALLATION AND REMOVAL GRANTS
Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Madam Speaker, my question is supplementary to the question put by the hon. member for London West, and it is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. 1 am delighted he has briefed himself so well on this home insulation problem.
Having encouraged home owners to install urea formaldehyde foam insulation, the government then went on to subsidize them by way of home insulation grants. However, the government added the amounts of those grants to the taxable incomes of recipients. Therefore, people filling out income tax forms now are paying taxes on the grants they received to put the insulation into their homes. My question is very simple. These people are taxed to put in this insulation. Under the minister's new program will they be taxed now to take it out?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I think I should refresh the memory of the hon. member. First, the program was established to encourage home owners to insulate their homes. The government never favoured one product over another product. Therefore, the assertion of the hon. member that we encouraged people to insulate their homes with urea formaldehyde is totally incorrect. That has never been done.
Second, the hon. member says that home owners today are paying income tax on grants they received in relation to UFF1. That is stretching it in the sense that no home has been insulated with UFF1 for over a year, because Canada was the first country to ban this product, more than a year ago.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Canada is the only country in the world that subsidized it.


André Ouellet: There has been no insulating with this product in Canada for over 14 months now.
Third, under the program we announced we are giving grants of up to $5,000, and those grants are not taxable.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Reports coming out of Washington indicate very clearly that the American government intends to go on studying indefinitely the question of acid rain, while at the same time, and during the past year, it has been issuing licences to a very large number of coal-burning factories and power stations along the southern shores of the Great Lakes. That government has made it very clear that it has no intention of matching Canada's commitment to reduce emissions causing acid rain by 50 per cent by 1990.

April I. 1982
Oral Questions
Would the Prime Minister seriously consider calling the American President and pointing out to him that when he was here a year ago he committed his government-and 1 quote his words-to "work co-operatively to understand and control the air and water pollution that respects no boundary". Will the Prime Minister urge the American President very strongly indeed to match the Canadian commitment to cut down on acid rain?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the concern he is showing and has shown in this matter. I would want to defer to the Minister of the Environment for more details on this, but the minister has been keeping me up to date on progress. Admittedly, it is slow, but it is progress nonetheless. The matter was discussed at a meeting of officials a month ago, and I am informed that at the present time there is a drafting committee which is at work on draft legislation in relation to that environmental commitment or agreement. So, there is progress.
The hon. member quoted President Reagan as having said he would work co-operatively. That co-operative work is proceeding. Once again, for further details I would have to defer to the Minister of Environment.


George Harris Hees: Madam Speaker, if the Prime Minister discusses this matter with his responsible minister and with his ambassador to the United States, he will learn that the American government is making no progress whatsoever and that the U.S. Congress has made it very clear that it intends to do nothing in this regard. The lack of progress during the past year has been really shocking.


REQUEST THAT CANADA LODGE OBJECTION
George Harris Hees: Madam Speaker, in view of what the American President assured us last year, and in view of what has not happened in the meantime, does the Prime Minister not think he was incredibly naive in believing the assurances given to him by the President of the United States a year ago, and will he tell the American President that we in Canada object very strongly to being brushed off by "Big Brother", which has been the case in this regard?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I may have been somewhat naive. If so, 1 must apologize to the hon. member. I have to remind myself constantly that the President of the United States is not supported by Congress as readily as the Prime Minister in this country is supported by the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In view of the fact that there has been no increase in the yield on government annuities since 1976, despite the recommendation of the minister's department back in February of that year that increases would be reviewed from time to time to reflect further fluctuations of higher interest rates and the increase in the cost of living, 1 should like to ask the minister whether he is aware of the recommendation of his department. If so, will he consider taking positive steps in this regard and introducing some measure of relief for those people who purchased annuities in good faith to supplement their incomes and retirement funds?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, certainly I am aware of the issue, not only because we are studying it in our department but also because we have received a number of representations from Members of Parliament and from the general public. As a result of this, I had discussions with the Minister of Finance to determine whether the government would now conduct an over-all review of the annuity situation because it relates to other kinds of government investment portfolios. A change in the annuity structure could not be undertaken without an obvious decision in relation to our other patterns of investment. The Minister of Finance and I will be discussing it further. I believe that review is probably required. We will announce it at the proper time.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT REDEEM LOW YIELDING ANNUITIES
Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: Madam Speaker, when the minister is having his conversations with the Minister of Finance perhaps he could go one better and recommend that the government could redeem very low yielding annuities purchased some 25 to 30 years ago, at full face value, thus eliminate the unfortunate problem, and at the same time offer some real relief to the holders of such annuities.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, certainly we are aware of the disparity in interest rates being received. As I pointed out in my previous answer, judgment must obviously be made in relation to other returns on different government debentures, bonds and holdings. I am sure we will take this into account and report to Parliament on the decision as to when the review will take place and the results of it.
April 1, 1982


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. A meeting was arranged between the L'Union des Producteurs Agricoles and the Liberal caucus in Montreal last Tuesday to discuss economic difficulties faced by farmers, as indicated by the 54 per cent increase in bankruptcies in Quebec and the 13 per cent increase in defaults on loans through the provincial lending agency. Since only four members of the Liberal caucus attended the meeting of over 1,500 farmers, they need some answers to their questions in the House. The hog stabilization formula makes lower payments as the market falls. Is the minister considering amendments which would base payments on the cost of production?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member made a speech before asking his question. He should know that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, my deputy, myself and several other officials, met with UPA at its annual convention in Quebec city. Later we met the board of directors and their president in Montreal. Four Members of Parliament including my parliamentary secretary, attended the meeting in Montreal. They received very short notice of the meeting. The hon. member knows that these members have responsibilities to do committee work, etc. 1 thought they did very well, for that many to be there, on such short notice. They had a good meeting. They were satisfied with the meeting. I was happy they were able to attend it.
Our programs in the province of Quebec which are used by the producers of that province are the ones which are accepted.
I understand a much larger meeting will take place in Quebec City where they were confronting the provincial minister of agriculture about the problems faced in agriculture in the province of Quebec. The hon. member asked what we were doing. We are doing more federally. Even in his own province he knows that last year we spent $131 million and that the province of Saskatchewan only spent $61 million.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT INCREASE PAYMENTS
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Madam Speaker, I guess making speeches is a little catching. Since there is a nation-wide crisis in the current year, will the government pay out 100 per cent of the cash cost of production for the year now ended to help producers until such time as a more adequate program can be negotiated?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows that in 1977 we proposed 100 per cent of income assurance to farmers for all their products. It was not picked up by producers or the provinces, etc. Some organizations are proposing practically the same thing I proposed on behalf of the Government of Canada in
Oral Questions
1977 as something they originated. We hope to be able to work out some kind of mutually-agreeable program. I hope we will be suggesting something in about three weeks.


BANKRUPTCY OF ECON CONSULTING LTD.
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Madam Speaker, I should also like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Since the minister was in Winnipeg on Tuesday of this week he should be up to date or briefed on the problems resulting from the bankruptcy of a grain firm called Econ Consulting Ltd., which left some 250 farmers primarily in Manitoba with losses of anywhere from $5,000 to roughly $100,000 in grain marketed to the company but never sold. Of course they never received the money. Since the Canadian Grain Commission has more than a passing interest in the entire matter, could the minister indicate what the government is prepared to do at the present time for farmers who are so severely affected in this case?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member mentioned, I was in Winnipeg on Tuesday at which time I met with some of the officials and a commissioner of the Canadian Grain Commission. We discussed this problem. I am satisfied that the Canadian Grain Commission followed its jurisdiction and responsibility in bonding the company; they have collected the bond.
As the hon. member knows, the matter is under investigation. The farmers are making representations to the Government of Canada, saying that the money was owed to them by the company-and they suggest that the bond should have been larger than it was-and that the Canadian Grain Commission or the government should compensate them. There has been no decision taken on this at the present time. I do not know what we will do. We are awaiting all reports to ensure that all sales were legitimate and proper, that the Wheat Board books were used, etc. Then we will look at it more closely. I do not see how we can treat this bankruptcy any differently than any other kind of bankruptcy. The Canadian Grain Commission runs spot checks with its auditors. They cannot possibly audit the books of every grain dealer every year. When they find something wrong, it is brought to the Commission's attention and they enforce the law.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT AID AFFECTED FARMERS
Jack Burnett Murta: I should like to make a suggestion to the Minister of Agriculture through you, Madam Speaker. Since some of the affected farmers will surely go out of business this spring because of the losses they have sustained-and some of them have told me this personally- would the minister be prepared to look either at having the Farm Credit Corporation administer money to the affected farmers for the amounts lost, which could then be repaid over a period of time, or using the Small Business Development Bond in some manner? We will see some farmers in Manitoba going broke because of what has happened. Rightly or wrongly

April 1, 1982
Oral Questions
they blame the Canadian Grain Commission for a lot of their problems.


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, we will use every recourse or avenue that we have to assist them in any way we can within the jurisdiction given our department by Parliament.


LOCATION OF PROPOSED VETERINARY COLLEGE IN ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Will the minister inform the House whether the federal government is committed to funding a fourth veterinary college in Canada to be located in the Atlantic provinces? If so, does its commitment depend upon an agreement by all four Atlantic provinces on a site, or would an agreement by three provinces suffice?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, we made a decision several years ago. We even had $500,000 in the Blue Book to start the veterinary and aquamarine college to be established in the Atlantic provinces. They cannot agree among themselves. The terms of reference which 1 was given as the Minister of Agriculture were that if they agreed it would go ahead. They have not seen fit to agree. The provinces cannot agree among themselves on where it should be located. If they had agreed, that school would be in the business of educating young people at the present time. We are still waiting for them to agree. It is not our fault, that is for sure.


Charles Joseph Clark: Answer the question.


Eugene Whelan: I have no other directions than those which I had in the first instance. The funding which was there has to be replaced because it has been withdrawn from the estimates. As the hon. member knows, we need money; we cannot just leave it in abeyance waiting for them to make a decision.


REQUEST THAT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ACCEPT MAJORITY VIEW ON LOCATION
Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, if it is not possible for all four Atlantic provinces to agree on a site for the Atlantic Regional Veterinary College, would the government take the initiative itself to get this long-delayed project off the ground, for example, by supporting the site favoured by the majority of the provinces-three of the four provinces in the Atlantic region-and by committing funds to the project now, based on that agreement of the three provinces?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, all that sounds good. But I am sure the hon. member knows which province will not go along with the other provinces. I am sure the hon. member knows the premier of that
province; 1 am sure his leader knows the premier. Why can he not use his good offices, because they are of the same political faith, and ask him to impress upon Premier Buchanan the importance of this school being located in Prince Edward Island so that we can get it on the road?


Charles Joseph Clark: Do you want me to do all your work for you, Gene?

[ Translation]


PETITION
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the one hundred and ninetieth report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) on Wednesday, March 31, 1982, and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, might 1 ask the government House leader to confirm the business for the remainder of the week and next week as well? I presume we will be proceeding with Bill C-97 in that it is out of committee today, and that tomorrow will be an allotted day. When he answers, could the government House leader indicate also, if he can, which of the energy bills will be coming to us next week? If he is unable to do that, perhaps he might give us some indication when we might expect to see notice of those bills.


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, in so far as the business for today is concerned, my hon. friend is correct. On both sides of the House we have the appropriate consensus to deal with and complete report stage of the fiscal arrangements bill today. Tomorrow is an opposition day.

Next Monday, we shall debate and complete third reading of the fiscal arrangements bill; on Tuesday and Wednesday we shall start consideration of the energy security bills. In this connection I can confirm to my hon. colleague that tomorrow we shall be able to give notices concerning most of the eight bills in question, but I cannot now determine the sequence in which the bills will be debated. Tomorrow I shall be able to be more specific in this regard. Finally, next Thursday will be an opposition day.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, 1 am curious whether I missed something in the response of the President of the Privy Coun-
April I, 1982

cil. Could he go over what we will do on Monday next once more?


An hon. Member:: Bill C-97.


Yvon Pinard: Next Monday, that is right, Madam Speaker; we will complete third reading stage of Bill C-97, dealing with fiscal arrangements.
1 am sorry, Madam Speaker, but my hon. colleague for Elamilton Mountain is correct, we did discuss other matters at our meeting this morning. There is no firm agreement but there is an understanding that everything possible will be done on Monday to get third reading of Bill C-58 and Bill S-19, but there is no commitment on any side to complete those stages on Monday. However, in good faith we will do our best to try to have third reading of Bill C-58 and Bill S-19. Arrangements concerning Bill C-97 were settled.


THE LATE BARRY MATHER
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, 1 simply want to tell the House that the former member for the constituency of Surrey-White Rock, Mr. Barry Mather, who was my immediate predecessor, passed away yesterday. He was a member of this House for 12 years, a highly respected man, both here in the House and in his constituency. I know that hon. members of the House would like to pass on their condolences to his wife and to members of his family.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I had intended to raise this matter after we had finished with House business. 1 want to join with the present member of the Surrey-White Rock-North Delta constituency, and I am sure with other members of the House of Commons, and extend on behalf of the New Democratic Party, for whom Barry Mather toiled for many years, the feeling of loss that we all have when we lose a good friend and a close companion. We wish to extend to his wife and to other members of his family our sympathy on their sudden loss.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the government and members on this side of the House, I would like to join with my colleagues in their expressions of sympathy on the passing of Barry Mather, who had friends on all sides of the House. He was a very well respected and very diligent member. We would like to extend to Barry Mather's family our very sincere sympathy.
Business of the House
[ Translation]


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Jacques Olivier (Longueuil):: Madam Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege which, I feel, is extremely important and concerns an incident that occurred yesterday in the House, where I tried several times to get your attention for a question of privilege. First of all, Madam Speaker, I feel-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please! If the hon. member intends to raise a question of privilege regarding the incident that occurred yesterday in the House, he should have given me notice of his intention. Unfortunately, 1 have not received such notice. If the question of privilege arose out of proceedings in the House today, I could listen to the hon. member now, but since the question concerns an incident that occurred yesterday, notice must be given, in accordance with Standing Order 17(2). If the hon. member wishes to give me notice, he will be heard by the Chair in due time. The hon. member for Longueuil has the floor.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Madam Speaker, if you do not mind, I will first discuss my second question of privilege. It concerns the current proceedings in this House. For two days, my simultaneous interpretation equipment has not been working properly, and I have been trying to get the attention of the House to point out that my rights in the House are being breached if I am not recognized. Therefore, this question does arise from today's proceedings. When I want to hear the hon. members-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please! The hon. member must understand that the fact that his earphone is not working properly does not in itself constitute a question of privilege. I realize that the hon. member must have suffered considerable inconvenience as a result of his defective earphone, but he could simply have let me know. He could have called me on the telephone or stopped by my office, and I would certainly have made arrangements to have his equipment repaired.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Parker:: Madam Speaker, I have a question with respect to House business. 1 was on my feet before the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) made his comments. My question pertains to Bill C-60. This bill was passed in the House of Commons close to Christmas. It has been approved in the Senate. Could the President of the Privy Council tell us when it will receive royal assent? 1 have many constituents in my riding who are looking forward to that bill being implemented.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, discussions are taking place with the National Energy Board as to when that body will be
COMMONS DEBATES___________________April 1, 1982
Petitions
ready to proceed with the implementation of this particular bill. As soon as it is possible and advisable, we will proclaim it.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jim Peterson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, I have the very great honor to present the twelfth report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


TABLING OF EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF COMMISSIONERS OF INTERNAL ECONOMY RESPECTING SALARY REVISIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to lay upon the Table of the House an extract from the minutes of a meeting of the Commissioners of Internal Economy, held on Monday, March 29, 1982, respecting salary revision for House of Commons employees, effective April 1, 1982.


PETITIONS
Dave Nickerson: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by 99 tenants of the Yellowknife Housing Authority. The petitioners request that Parliament take the necessary action to redress their several grievances dealing with the high cost of electrical energy in the north, the lack of incentive for rental accommodation construction contained in budgetary and tax measures being pursued by this government, the government's policy of leaving staff housing vacant over long periods when ordinary citizens are forced to go without adequate accommodation, and lastly, the unrealistic regulations of CMHC which cause a rent structure to be imposed which is inappropriate to the special conditions found in the north.
The petitioners would hope that these important matters can be dealt with as expeditiously as possible.


Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, it is my duty and honour to present a list of 980 names on behalf of my constituents as well as those gathered from Burnaby, New Westminster and Coquitlam, asking that the government institute a national referendum on the subject of capital punishment.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 3,689, 3,893, 4,026, 4,027, 4,062 and 4,063.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	With reference to the answer to question No. 3,267 relating to annual amounts extended on a provincial basis from federal funds to Canadian Parents for French and with reference to the heading "National" which appeared for each fiscal year, by year and by province, in what manner were the funds distributed through the national office of Canadian Parents for French?
2.	What accountability practices are in force in relation to funds allocated to national and provincial chapters of Canadian Parents for French?
3.	In what manner were each of the allocations spent, nationally and provincially?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Secretary of State):: 1. Funds referred to in the previous reply to question No. 3,267 as being contributed to the national office of Canadian Parents for French were retained by the association's national office, and spent on such activities as an annual national conference; a national newsletter; publications such as the book "So You Want Your Child to Learn French"; a bibliography; article reprints etc.; and a national survey of parents' views on second language instruction.
2 and 3. Each allocation was accorded after approval of a submission from the association which was judged to meet the objectives and criteria of one of the department's programs. All funds thus contributed to Canadian Parents for French are subject to the standard accountability practices and financial controls established by the department for grants and contributions to all voluntary organizations, in accordance with Treasury Board guidelines. The funds previously referred to as having been contributed in fiscal years 1978-79, 1979-80, and 1980-81, have been properly accounted for and were spent in accordance with the stated objectives.
April 1, 1982


Mr. Crosby: 1.	Did the government, through the Department of National Defence or otherwise, spend funds to "mothball" or ready the Argus fleet for storage and, if so (a) how were the funds spent (b) what amount was spent (c) who received the payments?
2.	Were tenders or proposals requested when the decision was made to dispose of the fleet and, if so, what were the tenders or proposals received?
3.	What were the terms under which the Argus fleet was sold or disposed?
4.	Was the amount received the highest amount tendered or proposed and, if not, for what reason was the highest tender or proposal not accepted?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Crown Assets Disposal Corporation informs me as follows:
1.	The corporation did spend funds to maintain the Argus fleet to applicable engineering standards, (a) The funds spent were for the maintenance of the aircraft, (b) The total amount spent was $349,298.87. (c) $260,110.75 was paid to the IMP Group, Halifax, for maintenance services and $89,188.12 to the Department of National Defence (DND) for materials including the tie downs.
2.	Starting in the summer of 1980, an 18-month search for potential buyers was undertaken by CADC and External Affairs to sell the fleet as operational aircraft. A sale could not be negotiated. DND re-categorized the aircraft to scrap metal status and CADC distributed the offer to purchase to 400 known scrap dealers. The following nine bids were received and opened publicly in Halifax on September 25, 1981.
Associated Electronics and Metal Salvage Ltd.
143,664.00
Cirsic Inc.	138,842.00
Bristol Metal Industries of Can. Ltd.	126,936.00
Pine Creek Ventures Ltd.	102,336.00
Michael Haws	69,000.00
Ajax Aircraft Parts Ltd.	55,555.55
Chatham Salvage Ltd.	49,200.00
Camille Siebert	49,200.00
Abe Levine and Sons	42,156.00.
3.	The standard terms and conditions of sale were used in the offer to purchase. In addition, the overriding conditions of sale were that: the aircraft were to be smelted or broken down on site to the extent that parts would not be recognizable as Argus aircraft parts, and that the project had to be completed no later than March 31, 1982.
4.	The amount of $71,936 was received for the scrap metal from Bristol Metal Industries of Canada. This was not the highest amount bid for the following reasons:
The first bidder, Associated Electronics and Metal Salvage Ltd. withdrew its offer.
The contract with the second bidder, Cirsic Inc. was terminated by CADC for default, and for that reason, the performance deposit for $50,000 made at the time of the contract award was forfeited by Cirsic Inc.
By the time, CADC approached the third bidder, the ten day validity period to accept the offer to purchase had elapsed.
Order Paper Questions
The original bid of the third bidder, Bristol Metal Industries of Canada Ltd., was $126,936; but due to the suddent depression in the metal market that occurred during CADC contract negotiations with the second highest bidder, Cirsic Inc., Bristol's revised bid of $71,936 was assessed as fair market value. However, before the contract was awarded to Bristol Metal Industries of Canada Ltd. CADC tried to contact the fourth bidder, Pine Creek Ventures Ltd., but this company situated in the Yukon was untraceable.
The remaining components were sold by lot to the highest bidders for an over-all sale value of $318,810.81. It is expected that the future sale of spare parts may generate additional revenues.


Mr. Manly: On what date was the comprehensive land claim of the (a) Association of United Tahltans (b) Gitskan-Carrier Tribal Council (c) Kitwancool Band (d) Kitimat Village Council formally submitted to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: (a)	March, 1979.
(b)	November, 1977.
(c)	October, 1977.
(d)	May, 1978.


Mr. Manly: On what date was the comprehensive claim of the (a) Association of United Tahltans (b) Gitskan-Carrier Tribal Council (c) Kitwancool Band (d) Kitimat Village Council accepted for negotiation by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?


John Carr Munro: (a)	March, 1980.
(b)	December, 1977.
(c)	December, 1977.
(d)	October, 1978.


Mr. Cossitt: Did Mr. Geoffrey James of the Canada Council make a statement to the effect that a recommendation from a Member of Parliament for a specific artist or project is "the kiss of death" and. if so, will the government either refute the statement or confirm that all applications to the Canada Council recommended by Members of Parliament did receive "the kiss of death"?


Mr. Jack Masters (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows: Mr. James did make such a statement in relation to what he recalled as the reaction of some members of Canada Council juries to letters of reference from Members of Parliament which were included by artists in their applications for

April 1, 1982
Federal Transfers to Provinces
arts grants. A check of our files has not revealed any cases of letters of reference from Members of Parliament in such applications, although the council sometimes receives letters of support from Members of Parliament. If an application did contain a letter from a Member of Parliament, it would receive the same treatment as other applications and would be assessed by the jury according to the same criteria, foremost among which is artistic quality.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	To the knowledge of the government, was a statement made recently by Mr. Geoffrey James of the Canada Council that "The worst thing that can happen to an artist is a recommendation from a Member of Parliament. It's the kiss of death"?
2.	Is it government policy to permit public servants to ignore representations made by Members of Parliament and to regard a recommendation from a Member of Parliament as "the kiss of death" to whatever or whomever a member is recommending and, if so (a) what arc all the reasons (b) is the government preparing to adopt a policy of governing the country without a Parliament?
3.	Does the government intend to amend the new Constitution so that Canada will be governed by the Prime Minister and the cabinet only?


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: 1. See reply to question No. 4,062 answered this day.
2.	No. (a) Not applicable, (b) No.
3.	Parliament, not the government, is the only competent body to amend the Constitution.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-97, to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977 and to provide for payments to certain provinces, as reported (without amendment)
from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Yvon Pinard: As I pointed out earlier, it seems that there is agreement on all sides for proceeding to the report stage of Bill C-97 on fiscal arrangements. So, as I said earlier, this is today's business if one of the parties wishes to move an amendment at this time, it is agreed that no notice will be required.


Miss MacDonald:: Madam Speaker, I presume at this point I can take part in the report stage debate of the bill.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for proceeding?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: The House gives its consent. Agreed.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Finance) moved: that Bill C-97, to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977 and to provide for payments to certain provinces, be concurred in.


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


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, just on a preliminary point of order, I want to make it abundantly clear that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) will be moving an amendment and there is also consent for the House to consider that amendment.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, that is correct. There is consent on both sides that all amendments, if more than one, be now put so that we can debate them and then we will vote on the amendment or amendments and the report stage later today.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, we would like the amendment considered in the usual way, that it would be the subject of a separate vote and that the report stage would also be the subject of a separate vote.


Madam Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: No.


Madam Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier) say no?


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Yes.


Madam Speaker:: Then there is no unanimous consent.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I distinctly heard the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier) say "yes".
April 1, 1982


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Madam Speaker, it merely proves, on the point of order regarding my question of privilege, that I am unable to understand hon. members when they speak in the other official language of the House. I therefore ask you to safeguard my privileges, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: I really would like to know what kind of privilege the hon. member for Longueuil is referring to. If his earphone is not working properly, I would ask him to use one of the other seats so that he can follow the proceedings of the House. There is nothing I can do right now to help the hon. member since it takes fifteen or thirty minutes, or at least an hour, to repair a defective earphone. If he would co-operate with his colleagues, he could listen from another seat.
1 repeat the question. Does the House give unanimous consent to the suggestion made by the hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard)?


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: In that case, we do not have unanimous consent.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I think that earlier you indicated that there was unanimous consent for proceeding with the report stage. So I think that is settled. The present refusal to give unanimous consent concerns a request to start immediately consideration of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). In that case, if-

-my colleagues, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), are willing to come and talk with me, we might start debate on the report stage, for which we have unanimous consent. I think together we can settle this matter, allow this amendment to be put and debate it a little bit later today.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, it was my impression that the lack of consent of the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier) applied to the whole process, the report stage and any subsequent proceeding. I regret very much that the failure to give consent has to come from a government member, especially in the light of the willingness of both opposition parties to co-operate with the government in getting this legislation through today.
I think the real solution lies with the government House leader perhaps taking the hon. member for Longueuil aside and speaking in an avuncular fashion to him in the hope that he will change his mind. Even if the Chair finds I am mistaken-and 1 do not think I am-in my belief that the failure to give consent by the hon. member applies to the whole process
Federal Transfers to Provinces
here, in terms of pure logic there can be no debate at the report stage without debate on an amendment.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, on the point of order, on the off chance that the hon. member who did not see fit to give unanimous consent did not hear the proposal correctly-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: -I wonder whether Your Honour might be prepared to put that proposal again. Because I must confess that I am a little confused myself as to the exact proposal. I feel confident that if Your Honour were to just explain it a little more, perhaps with the explanation we could all agree.


Mr. Paproski:: The President of the Privy Council will go over and explain it!


Madam Speaker:: We are at the point of procedure at which the House is asked whether it will give its unanimous consent to consider the amendments for debate.


Erik Nielsen: No, no.


Madam Speaker:: The amendments to the report.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Yvon Pinard: As you just heard, Madam Speaker, there is unanimous consent for moving the amendments, and there is more than one, immediately. 1 think the New Democratic Party also wants to move an amendment.
It is understood that the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier) is reserving his right to give you the notice required for raising his question of privilege at the appropriate time. That being understood, and now that the member for Longueuil has safeguarded his rights, we shall now proceed, as agreed with the House leaders, to complete the report stage and consideration of appropriate amendments to the fiscal arrangements bill.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, I was beginning to wonder whether I would get the opportunity to speak in the debate this afternoon. 1 wish to open the debate at report stage of Bill C-97 by remarking on the intensive scrutiny which we had to give it over a very short time in committee.
As Your Honour knows, Bill C-97 left the Commons on Monday evening when second reading was completed. Then it moved to committee study. The time allocated for committee study was woefully inadequate when one takes into consideration the magnitude of the fiscal measures embodied in the

April 1, 1982
Federal Transfers to Provinces
bill. The allocation of some $105 billion to the programs of equalization-


Madam Speaker:: 1 apologize for interrupting the hon. member. However, so that I can put a motion before the House, I would like to ask the hon. member which of the eight amendments the Chair has received the hon. member wishes to debate.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, I will be introducing a motion. 1 am not sure what Your Honour has in the way of the eight amendments before you. I have one motion that will read:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-97, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977 and to provide for payments to certain provinces, be amended by deleting Clause 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"6. Sections 18 and 19 of the said act shall lapse on April 1, 1984."
I apologize if there has been any confusion in the procedure that 1 have been following, but I am sure Your Honour knows that this bill was just reported out of committee at one o'clock today. That shows the way in which committee members have been working at it since Monday night. They have been attempting to subject this bill to the kind of scrutiny in committee work that it indeed merits.
There has been very little time in which to refer the bill back to the House from committee and to have reproduced, for the work of the chamber, the various amendments that we wish to place before the House. 1 know hon. members of the New Democratic Party also wish to bring amendments forward. I mentioned that the bill had been sent from here to committee following second reading only on Monday night of this week. That meant that we had very little time in committee to give the kind of scrutiny to this bill that is necessary as it embodies such tremendous fiscal measures. It includes the allocation of some $105 billion from the federal government to the provinces for equalization and established programs financing over the next five years.
May I say to Your Honour that in our committee work we tried our best to give it intensive scrutiny, although we could not give it the kind of thorough examination that an extended period in committee could have provided. A number of witnesses appeared before us. With varying degrees of intensity, they all condemned the government's proposal to cut back substantially on funding of post-secondary education and health care by removing, as the government proposed, the revenue guarantee component of the established programs financing.
Let me mention some of the organizations which appeared before us in committee during the few days that were available to us. AH of the organizations which came before committee in the last few days were unanimous in their opposition to the cutbacks proposed by the federal government. The organizations included The Canadian Council on Social Development, the Canadian Hospital Association, the Canadian Association of University Teachers, the Canadian Union of Public
Employees, the Canadian Federation of Students, The Canadian Labour Congress and the Canadian Medical Association. Your Honour will see, from the list of witnesses I have mentioned, that all of these organizations have a very real and deep interest in the funding of post-secondary education and health care across this country. They came before us in order to make known, in the strongest possible terms, their opposition to the proposals of the government. They were unanimous in their point of view. None of them agreed with what the government was doing. They all strenuously objected. Only three witnesses who came before us in that period of time supported the cutbacks. They were the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen), the Secretary of State (Mr. Regan) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin).
I can understand the motivation of the Minister of Finance. He told the committee that all he wanted to do was to save money, regardless of the threat those savings posed to the standards of post-secondary education and health care across this country. His only interest was savings. He pushed the whole question of reduced standards of health care and postsecondary education in this country to one side. 1 suppose 1 can understand his motivation; he wants to grasp every penny he can get his hands on. However, what I cannot understand, what I find to be deplorable, and what I consider, indeed, to be a betrayal of their obligations as ministers responsible for the programs involved, is the meekness with which the Secretary of State and the Minister of National Health and Welfare surrendered to the Minister of Finance.
We propose to defend the clause that they have abandoned. We are doing so by the introduction of the amendment that 1 read at the beginning of this debate. We propose to defend the measure, which the government has decided to take out of the established programs financing, by introducing this motion:
That Bill C-97 be amended by deleting Clause 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"6. Sections 18 and 19 of the said act shall lapse on April 1, 1984."
That is very simple, both in intent and in expression. The amendment provides that the revenue guarantee component of established programs financing entitlement will continue for two more years.
We would prefer to go further. We would not stop with that amendment as 1 have read it if we had the option to do so. We would prefer to go further and make the continuation of that clause conditional on signed commitments by each province to increase their spending on health care and on post-secondary education during each of the two years, by percentages equal to the growth in the EPF escalator, which means about 1 1.5 per cent.
We would make that conditional on the provinces if we had the power to do so. However, while the government could have written such a condition into the bill presently before us when it was being drafted, an amendment by the opposition to accomplish that purpose would not be out of order. So I am regretful that indeed we cannot take that further step and
April 1, 1982

make it conditional upon the provinces to meet this obligation. We are therefore settling for a second best alternative.
During the two-year period that 1 have mentioned, we advocate an up to date federal-provincial inquiry into the funding needs of health care and post-secondary education. We advocate that that take place with full scope for input from interested groups and the public at large. That inquiry's findings would provide the basis for the proper division of responsibility for funding those services between the federal and provincial levels of government. It could also take testimony on the better definition of program conditions and on standards of health care and on what might be the appropriate national goals in post-secondary education.
I raised this question with the Secretary of State so that during this two-year period what we could come up with, I would hope, would be indeed a better definition of program conditions and standards of health care and the appropriate national goals in post-secondary education. Both of these, we trust, would command the support of both levels of government and lay the groundwork for serious negotiations on those points. We think that, given such an effort, the result would be funding arrangements better than those agreed on in 1977, because they would reflect a broad national consensus.
We also believe that agreement could be reached on national goals in post-secondary education and on standards of care and a more precise definition of conditions in the field of health. At the very least, we think that the attempt should be made. I would hope that it would be successful; nevertheless, if it should prove unsuccessful we would have two years in which the programs are funded by the federal government according to the commitment that it made in 1977-and that in itself would be an achievement. After March 31, 1984, the formula now embodied in this bill could be reintroduced if a better one is not renegotiated.
Should this amendment pass, sir, I believe each province has the moral obligation to fund both these programs at rates of growth at least equal to that of the EPF escalator. I know that a number of the provinces, even in the face of the termination of the revenue guarantee component of the established programs financing, have announced funding levels for 1982-83 which indeed meet that standard which I would make conditional on the provinces in the next two years. Assuming, Mr. Speaker, that the provinces respond to that moral obligation, 1 believe this amendment is a fair one. I do not believe the concessions asked are unreasonable in view of the importance of the programs at stake.
Many of us have had the opportunity to speak on this bill and to stress the importance that we lay on programs of postsecondary education and health care in Canada. They are important to every individual, to every Canadian citizen. Therefore, we are trying to ensure that the standards in both of these programs remain at the level they are at now or are improved upon. What we do not want to see-and this will happen if the measures that the government proposes come into effect-is the standards reduced.
Federal Transfers to Provinces
1 would be most remiss if I did not acknowledge that the amendment 1 am proposing was inspired by the Canadian Association of University Teachers, whose approach to this issue throughout has been a thoughtful and a constructive one.
During the committee hearings on this bill, Mr. Speaker, a number of comments were made by members and ministers opposite which I think are relevant to this amendment. Yesterday afternoon and this morning we heard the Minister of National Health and Welfare admit that the provinces would never have agreed to go from cost-sharing to block funding for hospital insurance in 1977, as the federal government wanted them to, without the commitment of the federal government to add partial compensation for the 1972 revenue guarantee to the EPF formula. They would never have agreed to take that step if they had not been guaranteed that there would be partial compensation for the 1972 revenue guarantee. That was to be built into the 1977 formula, as indeed it was, and the provinces expected it to continue.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare then argued that terminating that component of the formula-a step which will save the federal government $5.7 billion over the next five years-is not a breach of faith with the provinces. Although she admitted that it had been put in there in the first place as a part of a bargain with the provinces, she then went on to say that removing it is not a breach of faith with the provinces. She cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker. In that argument we see once again the quality of this government's word. For on June 14, 1976, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) proposed the EPF formula, he argued that one of his reasons for doing so was that "the arrangements for these major programs should be placed on a more permanent footing". I repeat, he said "on a more permanent footing". Those were his words. So much, Mr. Speaker, for permanence and, indeed, so much for the word of the Prime Minister.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare went on to contend that the shortfall of $5.7 billion could somehow be absorbed without any impact on our health services in the provinces across the country. She argued that $5.7 billion less on health care and post-secondary education could somehow be handled without the standards being lowered in these two major programs. I am afraid, sir, that her faith in miracles is touching. 1 only wish it were matched by an appreciation of how much this bill is placing health care standards in jeopardy-because that, indeed, is what it is doing.
We also heard the Secretary of State say in committee that he could give no commitment as to what level of percentage increase in funding, if any, he will provide for post-secondary education after 1982-83. I pressed him on that, asking if the commitment beyond 1982-83 would be equal to, or an increase in, the EPF escalator. He refused to answer. He of course keeps in reserve the threat in the finance minister's budget paper on fiscal arrangements that the post-secondary education cash transfer will be frozen at its 1982-83 level after April 1, 1983, if negotiations with the provinces prove to be unsuccessful. This, after that cash transfer has already been reduced in 1982-83 by $180 million from its 1981-82 level.

April 1, 1982
Federal Transfers to Provinces
Therefore, we have a decrease this year in the actual cash payments that will be provided by the federal government for post-secondary education and we have no guarantee that after 1982-83 the transfers will not be frozen at a lower level than they were last year. That is the tremendous dilemma that faces all post-secondary institutions across the country, all students involved in those institutions, the faculty, the people who work in those organizations. That is the threat they now face.
First, they are being cut back this year in the level of funding. Second, the threat lies there that in future the level of funding may be held to what it is this year, which is reduced from what it was last year. At the same time, the Secretary of State expressed concern about interfering with the provinces' spending decisions on post-secondary education when 1 outlined this amendment to him. I told him what it was we wanted to accomplish with this amendment, to allow him two years to try and negotiate a better arrangement for postsecondary education financing and health care financing, to maintain the levels of spending at what they were last year and maintain the formula that was agreed to in 1977. However, he would not listen to that. He rebutted me with something to the effect that "I will cut my spending and then freeze it while you increase yours, but it is interference with provincial rights to say we will maintain our spending if you maintain yours while we negotiate". That was the intent of the comments by the Secretary of State yesterday.
I fail to understand his reason or his logic because it is not reasonable and it is not logical. Apparently the Secretary of State believes in a federalism of convenience. Perhaps 1 should not be too harsh on these ministers. After all, it is hard to be loyal when your government is implementing a policy which threatens to lead to the underfunding of programs you believe in. There is a real temptation to resort to the kind of sophistry we heard from these ministers in committee. If they truly believed in the programs they are supposed to defend, there was another path open to them. Instead of meekly following what the Minister of Finance told them they have to do, cut back on these major programs, a path was open to them, a path which people of more principle have taken in the past, and that is, after having lost the fight in cabinet, to resign in protest. If they truly believed in their programs, that is what they would have done.
Let me return to the comments of some of the backbench Liberal members of parliament who attended the committee hearings on this bill. They were very concerned, they said, that under the EPF arrangements the provinces had reduced their share of funding for post-secondary education. They did not see the use, they said, of extending the EPF arrangements because there was no guarantee that the money transferred to the provinces would be spent on the services for which it was intended. We heard that said over and over again. If that is the cause of their concern, I can understand it. If those are the reasons why they want changes to the EPF, I do not see how in conscience they can do other than vote for this amendment. It puts real moral pressure on the provinces to at least maintain, if not increase, their share of post-secondary education funding
during the next two years. The bill, as it stands, does not. The members who expressed concern as to whether the provinces might cut back on their funding, in this period of two years when moral pressure was brought to bear on the provinces to keep the spending at the level of the EPF escalator or to increase it beyond that, could see that being accomplished if they would support this amendment and give the negotiations a chance to take place in the next two years.
The amendment ensures that federal EPF funding will continue to rise according to the formula agreed to in 1977. If provincial funding does not rise by an equal percentage, the burden of explanation will then be on the provinces. The bill simply removes the revenue guarantee, as it now stands. The amendment which I am proposing uses the revenue guarantee as a carrot to get something of real value for the programs, time for serious negotiations and moral pressure for provincial spending commitments while negotiations go on.
If the Liberal backbench members who expressed concern do not vote according to the logic of their arguments, we can only conclude that their real motive is that of the Minister of Finance, a motive which the minister explained to us in committee with, I may say, refreshing candour-that he would not support this amendment because it would cost him $2 billion over the next two years. That was his only explanation; it was going to cost him $2 billion. He believes that he can spend that money better elsewhere than on post-secondary education and health care costs.
We do not believe the government can spend that great amount of money, $2 billion, on better programs than postsecondary education and health care costs. Neither does the party to my left, the New Democratic Party. They do not believe it could be better spent elsewhere. Nor does the Economic Council of Canada. Nor does the Business Council on National Issues. Nor does The Canadian Council on Social Development. Nor did the all-party task force on federal-provincial fiscal arrangements. All of them recommended against cutbacks in post-secondary education and health care costs. We hope that enough members on the other side will have the wisdom and the courage to join that illustrious company I just mentioned to ensure the passage of this amendment.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move an amendment on behalf of the New Democratic Party.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is an amendment before the House. If the hon. member is proposing an amendment which could be grouped with this amendment for debate and perhaps have the two voted on separately, this would require unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: What I was about to say, Mr. Speaker, is that they could be grouped for debate but voted on separately.
April 1, 1982

Therefore 1 move:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-97, to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977 and to provide for payments to certain provinces, be amended in Clause 6 by striking out lines 35 to 42 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"(a) the aggregate of
(i)	$15.26 and
(ii)	the quotient obtained by dividing
(A)	the federal contribution payable for all the established programs to
all the provinces for the fiscal year commencing on April 1, 1975
by
(B)	the population of all the provinces for that fiscal year".
The effect of this amendment would be to restore for the duration of the next five-year fiscal period the money associated with the compensation for the termination of the revenue guarantee. It is similar to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) in so far as the amendment moved by the hon. member would leave the same amount of money but only for the next two years. As expressed by the hon. member, she would like to see that two years become a time for negotiation between the federal and provincial governments as to the role that the federal government plays in post-secondary education and national standards for health care.
We support the amendment of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands but we would like to see the money continued for the whole term. We are not against the two-year negotiating period but, as has always been our position, the money associated with the compensation for the termination of the revenue guarantee is money for health care and postsecondary education. It was regarded as such in the last fiscal arrangement and should continue to be regarded as such for the next five years.
There has been much confusion and debate about what has been known as the revenue guarantee. This is not the last time 1 will mention the guarantee because in all probability I will try to explain it again at third reading. In any event, I will try once again to explain for the record the way in which the government has been dishonest about the role of the revenue guarantee in the established programs financing.
I would like to begin by saying that there is no revenue guarantee at this time. There is nothing known, labelled or to be found in any piece of legislation as a revenue guarantee. For this reason I keep repeating that when I refer to the revenue guarantee I mean the compensation for the termination of the revenue guarantee, because that is really what we are talking about.
It is due to linguistic laziness that people refer to it as the revenue guarantee. It has become a dangerous habit because this conveys the notion that there is something called the revenue guarantee and therefore something separate from the established programs financing that the government can remove without being accused of taking away money intended for health care and post-secondary education.
Federal Transfers to Provinces
The fact of the matter is that the revenue guarantee, as such, ended in 1977. It was an agreement made in 1972 by the federal and provincial governments to compensate the provinces for whatever revenue they might lose as a result of the tax reform initiated in 1972. This agreement expired in 1977. At the same time that it expired, the federal government and the provinces were renegotiating the EPF and the funding for health care and post-secondary education, moving into a block funding system for those two programs. I assume that during other independent negotiations the provinces were complaining about the termination of the revenue guarantee. The federal government indicated that the revenue guarantee was finished, but since the provinces were unhappy about this fact, it would contribute extra money-$7.63 per capita, to be exact, plus one tax point-to the established programs financing. In other words, it offered to sweeten the pot.
On this condition the government asked the provinces if they would agree to integrate all the legislation into the new established programs financing bill rather than wait until 1980 for the hospital legislation to terminate. The provinces agreed to this and the revenue guarantee ended. The sum associated with compensation for termination of the revenue guarantee was rolled into the established programs financing.
What ensued was that the federal government consistently-up until the November, 1981 budget-regarded all the money in the established programs financing, including the money that the provinces were acquiring as a result of the tax point transfers, the money associated with the compensation for the termination of revenue guarantee, the cash payments, the transitional payments; all this money was regarded by ministers of the Liberal government as money for health care and post-secondary education. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) in particular travelled across the country telling people what the percentage of federal government spending on health care and post-secondary education was and claiming great credit for spending this amount of money.
What occurred next was that the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) decided that he would like to solve his deficit problems, and although these problems do not result from these programs, he decided to pass on some of his deficits to the provinces and make the terrible mistake of trying to fight economic problems which were caused by other sources at the expense of these particular programs. The minister decided to change the government's perception of the money associated with the compensation for the termination of the revenue guarantee.
In committee this morning, the Minister of National Health and Welfare admitted that she wanted the provinces to regard the money associated with the compensation for the termination of the revenue guarantee as money to be spent on health care. If there is anything beneficial about meetings being held one after the other, it is that by sheer persistence you can sometimes get people to say something that they have been desperately trying to avoid saying for a number of days. In any

April 1, 1982
Federal Transfers to Provinces
event, she said she regarded that money in that way but could not persuade the provinces.
1 have admitted all along that the provinces were wrong about this. They made a very serious mistake in the first few years of that last agreement, which was a very good agreement for them. They should have said, "Yes, all that money is for health care and post-secondary education", and they should have gone ahead and spent all that money on health care and post-secondary education. If they had done that, they would not be in the spot they are in today. They would not be in that spot if they had not let their percentage spending fall. They were partly to blame too.
Elowever, the federal government, particularly the Minister of National Health and Welfare, as she admitted this morning, regarded that money as money for health care and postsecondary education. What has the government done? It seems the Minister of Finance has said, "I want to save money anyway, so here is a good angle: we will throw the arguments of the provincial governments back in their faces and keep repeating them to them". That is what the federal government has been doing. The Minister of National Health and Welfare, probably embarrassed-initially, at least-by the cutbacks in this particular area, has tried to claim that she always had this view of the revenue guarantee; but this morning it seemed to me she slipped up for a minute and indicated that yes, she had seen this money spent this way, and she wished the provinces had spent it on health care and post-secondary education, but they did not. She could not persuade them, so now the federal governement is going to take it away from the provinces.
My position is that the federal government was right all along. It was right until it changed its mind in November of 1981. It should have stuck to its position. It should have stayed with the amount of support it regarded as necessary to provide for health care and post-secondary education and entered this new period of negotiating national health standards with that amount of money in its hand. It should have said, "We want to give this much support to health care and post-secondary education, we want to continue to give this much support to health care and post-secondary education and we want to give it under the following conditions". That would have been a much stronger bargaining position for the federal government had it entered this new negotiating period in that way. But instead, what has the federal government done? It wants to bargain for tougher national health care standards, but it is taking money off the table, and this is more unfortunate than I can possibly express. It does not bode well for the negotiations I want the federal government to go into. I am not taking the side of many of the provinces which say that the federal government should stay out of medicare, that it should not have an opinion about how this money should be spent and that it should not demand accountability. I want the federal government to do all those things. My complaint about this legislation is that it makes it more difficult for the federal government to do that. There was really no need for it to do
this. This is a stupid, blind move which does not have to be made. The federal government could move into these negotiations with all the money it was previously giving to health care and post-secondary education with a strong commitment to both those programs and have much more success at the negotiating table than it has now. Our amendment is designed to put that money back in.
All the groups which appeared before us in the committee and everyone I can think of, except the Liberal Party, have the same view of the consequences of the cutbacks I have just enunciated. The Canadian Health Coalition, the Canadian Association of University Teachers, The Canadian Council on Social Development-it did not matter who it was; all the witnesses before the committee took the view that it would be very damaging indeed for the federal government to go ahead with these cutbacks.
Our health care system is in a crisis. I do not like to use the word "crisis" over and over again because it is a word that is used too much in this House, and certainly our health care system could be a lot worse.


James Douglas Manly: Give the Liberals time.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Someone says, "Give the Liberals time".


Mr. Nystrom:: Not too much time.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I am reluctant to use the word "crisis", but generally things do not just deteriorate overnight. It is a process, and I think this step by the government is one significant step in that process. It is not the end of the world, but this step makes it unlikely that in another area-that is, the negotiation of standards and conditions and the clarification and enforcement of those conditions-negotiations will succeed in the way I know most Canadians would want them to succeed and in the way I know my own party wants them to succeed. This is just another step down the road to a time when some provinces in particular-but all provinces-will feel the bite of these cutbacks.
The responses of the various provinces will differ because the medicare systems in the provinces differ. However, the consequences will be similar, as I have said, in terms of there being an effect by the cutbacks. However, I am particularly concerned about provinces like Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta. I pick these three provinces by virtue of the fact that they are the three provinces which still charge premiums for medicare. This says something about how they like to finance medicare. They do not like to finance medicare in as progressive a way as possible. They are more attached than other provinces to "user-pays" views of health care.


Mr. Blenkarn:: It is the same in Yukon.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I am told it is the same in Yukon. We did find that when we went up to Yukon. When the federal-provincial task force went up to Yukon, we found that in spite of all the rhetoric of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, at hospitals in the Territories for which she is responsible they were imposing user fees. I think that got out and they were
April 1, 1982

discontinued shortly thereafter, but sometimes there is a difference between appearance and reality.
As 1 was saying, in some provinces in particular, there will be a move to reintroduce and strengthen some of the private funding mechanisms that are already there. Some provinces will be looking for more ways to bring private money in to compensate for the lack of public money. In some cases this will be welcomed by these provinces.
Medicare is not as established in the national fabric as we all like to think it is. Any program which is only 18 years old is not very established. In the long run of political history a program of 18 years' duration is not very established at all. Medicare is a very young and fragile political fact. Many of the people who were so violently opposed to medicare only 18 years ago are not dead yet, they are still around. They still hold grudges. Perhaps they would still like not to have medicare. We have to be very careful that we do not provide the political pretext for all these people to come out of the woodwork again. They have been lying low while there has been a lot of money around. We can have almost any system we like if there is a lot of money to spread around, but when we come across hard economic times and we create the political context and economic context for medicare that the Minister of Finance is helping to create now, these people will start to show up again, and the arguments for more private money in the system will start to show up again. They will show up, ironically, in some of the provinces which have the most money and the most ability to fund their medicare systems in a progressive way entirely from general revenues.
It has always seemed to me to be a complete mystery why provinces like Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia cannot afford to fund their medicare systems out of general revenues through a progressive taxation system, when Manitoba, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick can afford to do this. Why? Because there is still that philosophical hostility to medicare which exists in certain places more strongly than in others.


David Orlikow: Especially Conservative provinces.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) says especially Conservative provinces, and I could not agree with him more. It is a very dangerous game indeed that the Minister of Finance is playing. The Minister of Finance is taking an unnecessary risk. He will really be providing a cover for those who would like to move against the principles of medicare in any case.
Medicare is not just a matter of money; it is also a matter of commitment to a particular view of society and of the Canadian community as a place where people ought to have available high quality health care, whether they are rich or poor, whether they live in the Atlantic provinces or in Toronto. Medicare embodies a particular view of the country. It is a universal program which is available to people because they are Canadians, not because they are poor or have passed some
Federal Transfers to Provinces
kind of test. This is something we want to say about Canada. People in Canada, unlike those in many other countries-and the United States comes to mind-do not have to worry about the financial consequences of becoming sick. If they feel that there might be something wrong with them, there is no disincentive to attending doctors' offices for early diagnosis. They do not have to put it off until family allowance cheques come in or until they can afford it next week because they would like to buy bicycles for their children.
For most Canadians medicare is a classic example of what co-operative federalism can be when it is made to work and when it is informed by the kind of vision about which I have been talking. I think the Minister of Finance and the government are making a mistake; they will rue the day. I do not want to be standing around here or somewhere else down the road saying "I told you so." I would much rather the government accepted either the Tory amendment or ours and give time to conduct the policy discussion first in order to discover what kinds of medicare and post-secondary systems Canadians want. Then the fiscal decisions can be made afterwards. As The Canadian Council on Social Development pointed out, it is being done totally backwards. They are making fiscal decisions first and then deciding on what kind of system Canadians want. In that event, as has happened many times before, the financial structures will determine the system we get rather than the system determining the financial structures.
I hope these amendments will pass, and that Liberal members will have a change of heart and vote for them.


Mr. Douglas Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and make a few comments concerning the debate as it has progressed thus far. Before doing so, I should like to say to the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) that the two of us have had a great time romping our way through the billions of dollars.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: We sure have.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: I remember well in the last election campaign when I was asked my attitude about the world in general that I confessed I was a spender. It has been a revelation to discover that the same sentiment beats in the heart of the hon. member for Mississauga South.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Oh, oh!


Douglas Glenn Fisher: He showed himself to be a great enthusiast with the public's money; we are grateful to see this conversion in him. It is a real improvement.
The debate on the opposition amendments have made two important points, both of which I reject. The first point was that the revenue guarantee was important money spent on health care and post-secondary education. We on this side of the House do not accept that argument. The second point was that because we are removing this label or category from spending, we will see some kind of collapse in the school and health care systems. Again I do not accept that argument.

April 1, 1982
Federal Transfers to Provinces
There has been much said about it, but we have not seen any evidence.
1 should like to take a look at the numbers themselves, at the evidence. Hon. members know that on March 19 the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) released a statement in which he gave some important figures. The first and most important part of the statement was the total number of dollars involved. Over the past five years, under both equalization and established programs financing, we spent approxiamtely $61 billion. Over the next five years we will spend $105 billion. We are spending $16.4 billion this year, and that will rise in 1986-87 to a total of $26.3 billion. Out of that, we see that the federal government will spend some $76.2 billion on health care and on post-secondary education. This year-$11.6 billion will go to those two categories, and in 1986-87 it will be $19.2 billion. We are talking about huge amounts of money and about very respectable rates of growth in our transfers to the provinces. We are not talking about cutbacks-or abandoning our responsibilities. We are talking about a reasonable maintenance of the standards and dedication of the government to these two vital programs.
1 think we should look at the fact that the growth here parallels the growth in the economy. It is a reasonable, planned growth and an amount the economy can manage. It is not unlimited growth; it is not a flat line, either. We are seeing approximate 12 per cent increases year after year over the next five years. Can we be satisfied that this growth rate is adequate?
I refer the House to the statement of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) yesterday, from which I will quote directly:
It is no secret that we are in a time of economic restraint. But the federal government is committed to upholding its side of the bargain when it comes to financing social programs for Canadians. We will not reduce our support for health care. In fact, over the next five years federal contributions for health will increase at an average annual rate of 13.4 per cent. Next year our support will grow by 12.2 per cent. The federal contribution to the provinces for health will total about $8.5 billion next year. This translates to a total of $347 for each person living in Canada.
As the Minister of National Health and Welfare indicated, that is a very respectable maintenance and growth level for the health care program. When the Secretary of State (Mr. Regan) appeared before the committee, he made the same kinds of commitments. We are not abandoning our responsibilities; we are maintaining and expanding them responsibly.
Also we must ask ourselves why we have not supported the two amendments which have been put forward. The Minister of National Health and Welfare gave the answer in the first sentence which I quoted:
It is no secret that we are in a time of economic restraint.
If we were to extend the established programs financing for the next two years, we would be spending an extra $939 million this year and an extra $1,052 million in 1983-84 above the rate of growth we have already scheduled.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Now you admit it.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: We simply do not believe that we are sacrificing the quality of the programs by not spending that money, and we do not believe that those expenditures are called for during this period of restraint.
A very great deal has been made about the $5.7 billion that somehow has magically been taken out of this whole program. This amount, called by the opposition the revenue guarantee, for the next five years would not have gone to health care or post-secondary education. The premiers have told us that. They told us last August that they would not spend this money on those programs. They do not automatically consider this money to be committed to those programs. They consider this money to be simply a transfer from the federal treasury to the provincial treasuries. This is money to be spent at their discretion. Perhaps by chance it could go to health care or postsecondary education. Equally by chance, it could be spent on highways, on sewers or on some other physical development of assets within the provinces. Their choice would be to spend the money as they see fit on their own provincial priorities. There were to be no guarantees that this money would be dedicated to those programs.
It is fallacious to argue that we are reducing our funding for these social programs by that amount simply because that amount is not in our budget. There was no guarantee in the beginning that the amount would be spent on those programs.
I believe restraint is needed. We have all received that message. What are we restraining here? We are not saying to the Canadian people that we are cutting back on funding to universities, to hospital care and medical care. We are not saying that. The figures 1 quoted earlier indicate the commitment we have to sustain these institutions and these programs. What we are saying instead is that the sky is not the limit. We cannot take that approach today. We simply have to put a cap on the rate of growth. We have to say that a reasonable expansion that takes into account the expansion in the economy will be permitted. We will not permit unlimited spending increases. We have to put a cap on those. We have to watch our spending as we heard so eloquently today and yesterday from the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and as we have heard from the Secretary of State who spoke yesterday in the committee. We have heard the commitments of these ministers to quality in these programs.
Anyone who wants to find out the direction of our spending programs and our commitments for the next five years would be well advised to review the notes of the committee hearings. The debate was stimulating. Both ministers very clearly stated their personal beliefs and commitments to these programs. They have each indicated they are allowing their spending to expand to protect existing programs. They do not intend to go for new programs or for unlimited new increases in spending. The Canadian people do not want that. We have a commitment to Canadians to restrain our spending to within the growth limit of our economy. We are maintaining that commitment in this bill.
April 1, 1982

1 do not think anyone in our party has to apologize for restraining increases in spending for medical care, for hospitalization or for post-secondary education. Members of this government are the people who originally urged the beginnings of these programs. Ours is the government that put these programs into place. Ours is the government that has defended these programs. Ours is the government, as we have seen, that will nurture these programs over the coming five years. We make no apologies either for our commitment to these programs or for our commitment to restrain our spending.


Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to participate in the debate concerning Bill C-97. 1 wish to address my comments to, and focus on the amendment that has been introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald).
I was interested in the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. Fisher) and his recognition that there will be a cut of SI billion a year. I was interested to know about his commitments to quality, yet he believes that quality somehow can come without any expenditure. I am interested in those comments because it reminds me of the person who makes a commitment to a loved one and writes a note saying: "1 want to see you more than anything else; 1 am coming to visit you tonight". Then there is a postscript to the note: "I will be over if it does not rain." The commitment which the parliamentary secretary outlines is not a commitment to philosophy. He also says, "do not confuse us with the details as to how we will deal with it."
The terms of the amendment put forward by my colleague allow the federal government a way out of the federal-provincial impasse which has unfortunately obscured the very serious problems faced by Canada's post-secondary education community. It is in this area that I wish to focus my remarks.
Regrettably, this piece of legislation both begins and ends any opportunity to pull together the potential contributions of both those levels of government. Instead, it does little more than add to the current state of unproductive confrontation between levels of government and the disquiet in our advanced educational institutions. Surely, Mr. Speaker, it is a selfevident rule of policy formulation that this bill is coming at the wrong end of the process. First, we should have had public hearings that would have involved all the interested parties in the nation's post-secondary community. Then on that basis, the federal and provincial government should have sat down and worked out negotiated funding mechanisms, grounded in mutually satisfactory visions of the role of post-secondary education in Canada's future. Then, and only then, should those agreements have been enshrined in federal legislation.
The current Secretary of State takes every opportunity to make the point that the support of post-secondary education has already been studied enough. Indeed, the important contributions of the special task force on federal-provincial fiscal arrangements have taken the country well down the road to informed decision making. However, we should not forget the limited terms of reference of the parliamentary task force.
Federal Transfers to Provinces
As reported in Hansard for February 5, 1981, we find the following:
-to examine the programs authorized by the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977, focusing in particular on fiscal equalization, the tax collection agreements, the Canada Assistance Plan, and Established Programs Financing; and that this examination take place within the context of the government's expenditure plan as set out in the October 18, 1980, budget.
You will note, Mr. Speaker, that the task force was not empowered to address itself to non-financial matters, this is in keeping with this government's insistence that the future direction of post-secondary education is entirely a matter of dollars and cents agreements with the provincial governments. Is it any wonder that such unilateral actions as the federal government has taken with Bill C-97 have caused the students, staff, faculties and administrators, who are committed to an increased vitality in the post-secondary community, to suspect the motives of this government? Where is this government's umbrella statement of the future place of post-secondary education in Canadian society? It runs surveys and polls in a variety of other areas, but it does not survey opinion in this area; rather, it attempts to dictate it. It does not formulate long-term policies; rather, it counts its short-term spending visibility as most important. It has no vision, merely the desire for political credit.
In my riding of Waterloo three prominent national postsecondary institutions, the University of Waterloo, Wilfrid Laurier University and Conestoga College of Applied Arts & Technology, met to discuss what they called the crisis in postsecondary education. The message communicated to me in that public meeting was that these institutions feel like a basketball being bounced back and forth between two levels of government. They also voiced considerable support for the Canadian Association of University Teachers' proposal to extend existing EPF agreements for two years in return for a provincial commitment to increase post-secondary spending by 11.7 per cent in 1982-83 and 11.9 per cent in 1983-84. They have proposed that the two-year cooling off period be used for a joint inquiry to be conducted by the federal government and the Council of Ministers of Education. Open, public hearings would be held so that students, faculty, staff, administrators and community leaders could express their respective wants and needs in the area of advanced learning. The inquiry would be given only one year to report its findings, and the second year would be devoted to federal-provincial negotiations on the basis of those findings.
That is what I mean by pulling together a Canadian vision for the future role of post-secondary education and its support. A practical, creative mechanism for negotiated change. That, Mr. Speaker, is the process for which our party's amendment provides.
Lest members opposite scoff at the potential utility of such a policy-formulation process, let me relate it to the work of the federal cultural policy review committee, sometimes referred

April 1, 1982
Federal Transfers to Provinces
to as the Applebaum-Hebert commission. Its recently submitted "Summary of Briefs and Hearings" casts an interesting light indeed on the need for a similar investigation into the future of post-secondary education in Canada. The chapter entitled "Knowledge and Scholarship" deals with the relationship of knowledge and scholarship to culture and federal cultural policy. The brief submitted by the Canadian Teachers' Federation zeros in on the policy vacuum which I address here today in the context of this amendment. It says:
The problem of cultural choice cannot, in our view, be divorced from the question of educational policy. The need for a coherent cultural policy is an aspect of the need for a national consensus on educational goals.
The Canadian Association of University Teachers made a detailed response on this theme. They said:
It is ill advised and unrealistic to try to devise an adequate national cultural policy without discussing the role and development of education. Taken as a whole, the education system:
1.	provides the knowledge and intellectual base on culture;
2.	acts as the most important institution for the transmission of our cultural
heritage to future citizens;
3.	plays a direct role in the training of future arts and cultural thinkers; and
4.	increasingly provides important facilities and resources for cultural events
accessible to the general public.
The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council made a point which goes to the very heart of the bill before us today. They said:
The human sciences, in applying a reasoned approach to the perception and assessment of human materials and events, attempt to place current problems in the perspective of things past and to vistas on the future in the light of lasting human values.
Very telling, that phrase "lasting human values". In view of our discussion here today, Mr. Speaker, I wish that the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and the Secretary of State (Mr. Regan) had the wisdom and political energy to have grounded Bill C-97 in any recognizable "lasting human values".
I do not want to overdraw my comparison between the need for a full review of post-secondary education policy, such as it exists, and the federal cultural policy review initiated by the then secretary of state, the Hon. David MacDonald, in November, 1979, so I will conclude my remarks on it with this quotation from the brief presented by the Association of Universities & Colleges of Canada. They said:
Be it fundamental or applied, humanistic, social or scientific, university based or not, research is directed at the creation of new knowledge and of new understanding of ourselves and our world. It is intellectual and creative activity at its best, and it is essential for the cultural advancement of society.
The point as I see it, Mr. Speaker, is that without first laying out its vision of the role of post-secondary education, the federal government risks permanent-albeit unintended- damage to the cutting edge of Canadian intellectual activity in generations yet to come.
What, pray tell, has possessed this government to take such a scatter-gun or, one might say, scatter-brain approach to the funding of advanced learning as that documented in this legislation before us today? Why have they not first come to some informed decisions about general policy directions? Just what do the Minister of Finance and the Secretary of State
imagine will be the consequences of this sort of unilateral action? What have they envisioned to be the role of community colleges and universities? Given the underfunding, which the parliamentary secretary has just recognized, enshrined in Bill C-97, what do they expect post-secondary institutions to look like in two, Five or ten years? Will they have libraries, for example? What quality of education will they be able to offer? Will our best scholars in areas other than Canadian studies or job-creating areas have fled the country? To what social groups are they directing educational opportunities? How many of the present institutions will be left in existence?
These are just some of the questions which need to be answered. At the same time they must be considered against the background of the final report of the task force entitled, "Fiscal Federalism in Canada", to the effect that any further cuts forced on post-secondary institutions will be cutting not into fat, but into sinew and marrow. The Secretary of State's predecessor concluded his testimony to that task force by:
-noting the need for a federal strategy that will address the challenges facing the post-secondary system in the eighties, a federal strategy that will actively support the achievement of national objectives, and a federal strategy that is realistic in light of fiscal restraint and that is consistent with basic principles such as accountability and visibility.
While I have yet to see an adequate definition-to say nothing of a social justification-for "visibility", I am close to agreeing with the balance of his remarks. What concerns me most, however, is that there has been no new initiative from the federal government to follow up on those bare thoughts since they were delivered in June of last year. In the absence of such a policy framework from the Secretary of State, we are faced with the financial ultimatum contained in Bill C-97. This is not good enough to encourage the wholehearted cooperation of those in the post-secondary community in terms of the future.
The amendment, which I support and which I encourage this House to consider and support, seeks to provide a mechanism for the discussion of these important aspects of the funding of post-secondary institutions.


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, it is, once more, a pleasure to take part in the debate on fiscal arrangements this time at the report stage. 1 believe that the two amendments, we are now discussing, one by the member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) and one by the member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), would both have the effect of delaying or extending established programs financing as it is now, including the revenue guarantee. At least, aside from all the statutory complexities or technical amendments, that would be the effect of the amendment by the member for Kingston and the Islands. Mr. Speaker, I wish to emphasize, and I repeat what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance said earlier, that revenue guarantee is a program that was introduced in 1972 to protect the provinces against drastic changes in the federal tax base. The
April 1, 1982

House will recall that in 1971 it legislated a thorough reform of the tax system and, at the time, some provinces said that this would drastically change the federal tax base.
Since at least nine provinces-all the provinces with the exception of Quebec, which has its own system for collecting income tax-are using the federal tax base to establish their own provincial tax, any change in the federal tax base also affects provincial revenues. The provinces have said: Give us a guarantee that the drastic reform you are now introducing will not just as drastically reduce the revenues of the provinces. The guarantee was what is still known as the revenue guarantee program. In fact, the program was extended in 1977, when the federal government and the provinces were negotiating agreements on block funding to replace the former shared-cost programs.
The question is, therefore, whether or not the revenue guarantee the government now proposes to eliminate was actually a part of programs financing. In 1977, the federal government or rather Parliament, decided that for administrative purposes, including the sending out of cheques, payments under the guaranteed revenue program, according to legislation that still exists today, would be made by the ministers responsible for the programs at the federal level in the same proportions as financing for health programs and post-secondary education. So that is the issue. In the report by the Standing Committee on Fiscal Arrangements mentioned earlier in the House this afternoon, a detailed history is given of the revenue guarantee program and various interpretations are given. In the tables listing the payments, revenue guarantee is listed separately from the programs, but there was a recommendation, which J supported at the time, that the revenue guarantee program should be allocated to the programs. And that is the big difference between the recommendation by the Parliamentary task force and the government's proposals. It is one of the big differences.
Now, is that justified? That is the question. Is it justified in terms of political morality and political judgment? Mr. Speaker, we must not forget that the provincial premiers published their press release in August, after the task force completed its report. We did not know they were going to say that. Our report was not published until August 31, but for all practical purposes, it was completed in terms of political decision making around July 24 or 25. The provincial premiers said that they did not consider the revenue guarantee as being allocated to programs financing. 1 am sorry about this, because I would have preferred to see the money allocated to the programs, and that could probably be justified. However, one of my reasons for supporting the position of the government today is, that despite the recommendations I agreed to in order to reach a political consensus on this matter, I have always believed that revenue guarantee was not an equitable transfer. I see the member for Mississauga-South (Mr. Blenkarn) is smiling. 1 have always thought the program was unfair, because it was an automatic transfer of funds, no strings
Federal Transfers to Provinces
attached, to all provinces, while the only program we have traditionally said would be entirely discretionary and automatic is the fiscal equalization program.
Mr. Speaker, there is justification for this, and for more than one reason. Even if the program were eliminated, we must remember that because of the changes proposed in the November budget which will result in an increase in the federal tax base, automatically, the provinces, if in some cases they introduce legislation to adjust to changes in the federal budget in most provinces this is done automatically, at least as far as personal income tax is concerned they will benefit from nearly $685 million in additional revenue. The members opposite claim this does not count, because these are provincial revenues the provinces themselves collect in the form of taxes, which is true. The fact remains, however, that it is a case of political judgment. We have to make a decision in terms of political morality, and the decision is up to the elected politicians. When the federal government makes a decision in Parliament, and Parliament legislates an increase in the federal tax base which provides additional revenue for the provinces, then, even if these are provincial revenues, at least we should consider the fact that such action, both political and parliamentary, to some extent justifies eliminating a program such as the revenue guarantee, which the provinces themselves decided they were not going to allocate to the other programs. Mr. Speaker, there is another side to this question. In the final analysis, when I add up the figures-

When I add up the figures, it is obvious what the over-all effect will be, even putting aside the question of additional revenues, caused by increases in the federal tax base. Hon. members of the opposition say that we should not count them. However, even if we do not count them, the over-all effect of the arrangement being proposed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and the arrangement that he made with the Atlantic provinces, just considering the increases to the equalization program, will be to more than compensate the provinces which receive equalization for the losses attributable to, or caused by, the elimination of the revenue guarantee.


David Orlikow: That's not true!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Not true!


Herb Breau: Let us look at New Brunswick as an example. The equalization entitlement for New Brunswick in 1981-82 amounted to $415 million. In 1982-83 it will amount to $490 million, an increase of 18 per cent, or $75 million. The changes to the revenue guarantee means that New Brunswick will lose $6 million. The tax transfer will continue to go up. 1 do not count the additional revenues due to the federal tax base. They will amount to $9 million, but let us not count them. So despite that, there would still be an increase to New Brunswick of $75 million in equalization, plus what is not counted here, a special arrangement that the Minister of Finance has introduced in
16060

April 1, 1982
Federal Transfers to Provinces
this bill as an adjustment because of certain population changes.
Four Atlantic provinces and Manitoba were receiving, and always have received, equalization payments based on assessments of population from the best figures available. In 1980-81 and 1981-82 those payments were too high. The provinces were not really entitled to them. It has happened before and was recognized practice that in the years to come those payments would be adjusted; in other words, there would be an accounting entry. They would not have to give the money back but it would be taken off the entitlement of the future.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) rises on a point of order.


David Orlikow: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Herb Breau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


David Orlikow: I have in front of me a table from page 55 of the budget papers tabled in last November's budget. They show in Table A-2, "Estimated Impact of Proposed Federal Savings on Provincial and Territorial Revenues for Years 1982-83 through to 1986-87". These are the figures prepared by the Department of Finance. For the province of New Brunswick it shows a loss of revenue for 1982-83 of $23.7 million; for 1983-84, $26.7 million; for 1984-85, $30.5 million; for 1985-86, $34.5 million; and for 1986-87, $38.7 million. At a rough count, that is $150 million. I wonder if the hon. member would explain those figures.


Herb Breau: I will be glad to explain them, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member helps me to make my point. He is quoting a document that the government tabled with the budget on November 12. Either the hon. member takes an awfully long time to read, or he does not read new papers that come out, or he cannot read. I have a release that came from the Minister of Finance in March of 1982. That is a long time after November 12, 1981. The figures that he quotes do not deal with equalization because on that day the equalization proposals were not even given to the provinces. They were given to the provinces for the first time at a meeting in Halifax on November 24 or 25. The hon. member should stop reading into the record the November 12 document and start reading the March, 1982, document.
I am quoting here the increase in New Brunswick, $75 million in equalization over and above the special payments I was in the process of explaining, $60-odd million, $186 million in all for the four Atlantic provinces and the other equalization recipient provinces. That is $60-odd million over and above the increase that the province of New Brunswick will receive in equalization payments. The over-all effect of these changes will be that only those provinces that do not receive equalization will be affected even when we do not count the increase in provincial revenues due to the enlargement of the federal tax base. I say that in terms of political morality you can count them, but even if you do not count them the over-all effect of
this will be that only the provinces of Ontario, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Alberta will be affected to any significant degree. The equalization recipient provinces will be very generously compensated due to the changes in the equalization program.
I know there will be different political opinions. All the provincial governments will continue to say that there are federal cutbacks. That is the nature of the political game. They have to bargain, to negotiate hard, particularly at this time because the unions are asking for increases in wages. Some 80 per cent of what they are talking about that goes into postsecondary education and health care is wages. It is a tough period, they have to take a tough stand and it is good politics to blame the federal government. I expect that to continue. But the facts are that the over-all increases in revenue to the provinces that receive equalization will more than offset any loss due to the ending of the revenue guarantee. It will more than compensate them. If the provinces decide that they want to squeeze the post-secondary institutions, or the hospitals, or the doctors, or anybody else, that is a political judgment that they are making. It is totally untrue and a distortion to say that it will be because of federal cutbacks. I repeat that I have not included, in making that judgment, those revenues that will be automatically provided by the enlargement of federal tax base.
Let us consider another thing, if anyone wants to talk about what is fair and what is unfair in politics. In the last five years, in the arrangement that finished at midnight yesterday the federal contribution has represented a larger percentage of the total expenditure from year to year. For example, in my province, New Brunswick, in post-secondary education contribution, if you include second language and minority language education programs, the yearly average has been an 18.4 per cent increase. The provincial government only allocated 11.5 per cent. We provided for that. If we had a system that permitted the provinces not to allocate the same amount that they were receiving from the federal government, what is so bad about that if there is going to be some adjustment on that in the future?
1 quoted in the House of Commons ten days ago that in 1981-82 for example, the fiscal year that ended yesterday, the federal contribution to post-secondary education and second language education programs in New Brunswick represents 107 per cent of what the province spent. The federal contribution represents 99 per cent of what the institutions spent. That means that the legislature of New Brunswick, through the New Brunswick government, allocates only 1 per cent of what is spent in that province on education after high school.
I recognize, and I did recognize in the House of Commons when I quoted those figures, that one cannot expect the Atlantic provinces to be able to sustain, on their own, postsecondary education systems. First of all, we cannot afford it. Secondly, too many of our young people, once they have graduated, go elsewhere because of the needs of the economy elsewhere. So why should there be a sacrifice by the taxpayers
April 1, 1982

of these provinces to train people so that they can go and work in Alberta or Ontario? So it is justifiable to spend a higher percentage in the Atlantic provinces. All the arrangements since 1966 recognize that. There was a special arrangement made in 1966-67 also.
However, in 1976-77 in my province the federal contribution was only 76 per cent or 78 per cent; now it is 107 per cent of what the province spends. Anyone who has sense and who wants to be fair ought to admit that this is not normal, that there is no reason why the provincial government should receive 7 per cent more than what it spends on post-secondary education. The equalization program provides unconditional support but it is totally unjustifiable to make a profit on program transfers.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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 York East (Mr. Collenette)-External Affairs-Future of Gibraltar within NATO; the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid)-(a) Hazardous Substances-Urea formaldehyde foam insulation-request that loans be granted to affected home owners, (b) Refinancing of homes, (c) Use of funds allocated for home renovation program; the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass)- Airports-Charlottetown airport expansion.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, notices of motions (papers), private bills and public bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
Notices of Motions Nos. 22, 35, 1, 48, 28, 43, 5 and 54 allowed to stand by unanimous consent.
EMERGENCY PLANNING-P.C. 1981-1305, MAY 21, 1981, REGISTRATION SI/81-76 JUNE 10,1981
The House resumed from Thursday, December 17, 1981, consideration of the motion of Mr. Friesen:
Emergency Planning
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, notes, minutes of meetings, memos, telegrams and communications relating to the order respecting Emergency Planning, P.C. 1981-1305, May 21, 1981, Registration SI/81-76 June 10, 1981.
Mr. Norman Kelly (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, when this debate was last in the House, I had just made a brief five-minute introductory speech before time ran out. Therefore, I am pleased to have the opportunity this afternoon to continue my remarks.
From time to time in this House non-issue issues seem to dominate its deliberations and the media outside this chamber. These non-issue issues, as I call them, are issues that really have little or no substance to them, but they are issues that pack an enormous psychological clout. They are designed for that very reason, to scare the heck out of as many Canadians as possible and, in so doing, besmirch the reputation of the present administration.
We have had excellent examples of two of these non-issue issues over the last six months. The two issues that I refer to are, of course, the taxation of imputed rental value of homes which the official opposition party raised, and the issue of internment camps created by planning order P.C. 1981-1305.
If I had the opportunity of speaking to the first non-issue issue, I would bring the attention of the House to its inadequacy. However, since we are dealing with the second one, it is my pleasure this afternoon to outline the nature of that issue, as I see it, and explain frankly why Canadians should not be concerned with that as an issue and why it should be completely dismissed and taken from the table of legitimate debate in Canadian society today.
We have two choices in this House when it comes to emergency planning. We can believe that we are living in a paradise in which nothing happens, to which nothing can happen and for which there is no need to plan; or we can believe that since we live in a very real world with all sorts of potential dangers in it which are growing increasingly more hazardous as we move more steadily into the industrial nuclear age, we must prepare for one emergency or another, domestic or foreign.
This government chose the latter option. I do not think anyone in this House would dispute that. Any party that forms the government would have to assume that at some time or other, in one part of the country or other, emergencies will develop, that we must anticipate them and have the personnel, resources and equipment ready to deal with them. If you accept that we must be ready for those unknown, unforeseen and yet very real emergencies that lie ahead of us, and we must obviously plan for them.
This government was faced with two basic options. It could have decided to plan exclusively within the confines of one single, large federal department. I am sure members opposite

April 1, 1982
Emergency Planning
would argue that such a department would be typically and bureaucratically top-heavy, and in the end when it had to act would probably do so in a way less effective than we had anticipated.
The other option, of course, was to have built on the diversity which characterizes the Canadian nation, the diversity which hon. members opposite often referred to in many of the debates on the Constitution. This diversity I am referring to is the diversity of resources that lie in the volunteer section of our society, at the provincial level and at the municipal level. The federal government's relationship to those three segments would be to provide the resources necessary for each of those three groups to do whatever job is needed in that future unforeseen circumstance of national, regional or local tragedy.
Of those two options which I have just outlined, the government in its wisdom, and I hope members opposite will agree, has chosen to create plans built on the diversity of talent which exists in this nation today. So far 1 do not think I have said anything with which members opposite could disagree. The conclusions which this government has reached, namely that we should have emergency plans and they should be based on the diversity of Canada, would, I think, meet with the agreement of all three parties in this chamber.
Having said that, and I think having the agreement of members opposite, we now begin to enter the realm of speculation and, 1 would argue, distortion by the official opposition. It claims that in planning for these future emergencies, this government has created new, unprecedented powers. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) has made that claim time and time again. The Globe and Mail, which appears to be his official organ, has repeated that claim almost as often as he has.
That accusation is, simply, straightforwardly and patently false. I dare not call it a lie because that would be unparliamentary language. But it is a distortion of the reality of the planning authority which is the backbone of this planning order. The planning order does not create new powers. What it does is assign responsibilities to the various departments of government. These departments have always had those responsibilities. There is nothing new in any of them. Those responsibilities stretch all the way back to the administration of the late Lester B. Pearson. Those responsibilities are almost two decades old.
The disturbing aspect of this debate, the distortion which has been made by the opposition party, is that the opposition knows this. It knows that those responsibilities have always been with those departments. It knows this because members of the opposition recently asked for a legal opinion on that very issue. The opinion which they received concluded that the government had the power to issue such an order in council as I am presently describing and that the government has acted validly and within an existing jurisdiction.
Being aware of that legal opinion, opposition members have apparently shifted the focus of their argument. They have moved on to ask this question: If the departments already have responsibility for that planning, do they have the authority to implement the plans? I believe the answer to that is twofold. First, the answer may be found in existing legislation. I would point out to hon. members opposite that the National Defence Act provides military aid to the civil power. The Energy Supplies Emergency Act of 1979 carries within it the authority to implement emergency plans, as do the various plans that fall under the aegis of the disaster financial assistance arrangements.
Although I could make further comments, I hope I have made my point that within existing legislation there lies a firm foundation of authority for the government to exercise and implement emergency plans which may be necessary in the future. There may be need for future special legislation to deal with areas which are not covered by the legislation which I have enumerated. It may be that special legislation will be prepared by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) who has special responsibility for these matters. I cannot speak on his behalf so I do not know if he will be bringing special legislation to the attention of the House.
It may that the House will wish to deal with special legislation at the time of an emergency. A decision such as that is not without risks. For example, it takes several days to prepare any bill for discussion and obtain passage in the House. In times of emergency we cannot afford a couple of days to await the reaction of federal, provincial and municipal governments. Reaction by these governments as well as volunteer groups such as the Red Cross must be immediate and focused. A couple of days just might mean the difference between life and death for thousands and perhaps millions of Canadians.
What happens if the House is not sitting? What happens if the House is in recess or has prorogued? Indeed, what happens if this House were dissolved and the three parties were involved in a general election? These are matters which every member of the House should recognize and remember when regarding, as suspiciously as opposition members do, the powers within the War Measures Act. Despite how abhorrent this act may appear to some members of the House, it allows the government to react immediately to any emergency which might arise when the House is not sitting. I would urge hon. members to recognize the attractive and responsible portions of that act and understand that it can be legitimately invoked on behalf of all Canadians at any time under conditions of a physical or military emergency.
I would like to conclude my remarks by saying that the major arguments and criticisms directed at this government over this non-issue issue, namely that it is without precedent, are totally false. 1 think I have demonstrated to the satisfaction of the House that there is absolutely nothing new or without precedent in the authority which this government would use to direct emergency operations within the dominion of Canada. Not only is there nothing new in this order, but more importantly it is obvious and clear that this order in council is within
April 1, 1982

the law. This government is not acting illegally and has absolutely nothing to hide.
The roots of this order lie deep in the administrative and legislative history of this House. They stand exposed: clearly, honestly and openly before all members in this chamber. For anyone opposite to conclude and argue otherwise is to give this debate an irrational and demeaning character which will not serve the interests and welfare of the citizens of Canada.


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


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, prior to commencing my remarks I would like to ask for the indulgence of the House. 1 believe there are another fifteen minutes left before the government can make its summation and the mover, the member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Fries-en), can summarize as well. I wonder if the House would be so inclined as to give unanimous consent that 1 share those fifteen minutes with my colleague, the member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers)?


Mr. Miller:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, members of my party have not had an opportunity to express our views in this debate. I would like the opportunity to do so within the next fifteen minutes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There does not appear to be unanimous consent. I recognize the hon. member for Provencher.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That being the case, I regret that my colleague will not have an opportunity to speak. However, I intend to take the fifteen minutes.
With respect to the topic which is before us, the government emergency planning Order, I would first like to commend the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta for his vigilance, the vigilance of my deskmate, the member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn), as well as that of other members in the House in terms of this planning order.
The member who spoke on behalf of the government a moment ago made it appear that this emergency planning order is simply a pro forma approach by the government. He said it is something the like of which the government has been in the practice of passing and that its justification is that it is good planning for the future. On the face of it, one might say there is some validity to those arguments; but are they the real issues which are facing us? 1 suggest that is not the case.
The issues facing us are the following. The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta and other hon. members have mentioned them before. The first is why legislation was not brought into the House. Why did the government have to use a regulation, an order in council, to pass the emergency order? I telephoned a provincial member who participated at the federal-provincial conference and asked him if he and his colleagues agreed to this kind of procedure whereby this matter is dealt with through the regulatory approach. He said, "We raised objections even at that time", in terms of the scope
Emergency Planning
of these emergency planning orders. This is not a matter on which the government should be moving ahead and defending under the aegis of good planning. It goes much further than that.
It is interesting to note how quickly Canadians have become aware that their civil rights can be removed by the government, not through legislation but, rather, through this order. It is ironic that in this month when we will be getting back our Constitution, including a charter of rights, we should even be debating an emergency planning order by regulation rather than by legislation. Since the 1970 crisis, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has committed himself a number of times to bringing that kind of legislation to the House. It is because of the vigilance of hon. members on this side of the House, both in the House and outside, that this debate has been forced, and I commend those hon. members for that.
What is being defended by the government as being good planning? Let us look at some of the issues. I repeat that this planning order was never passed in the House or debated in the House other than through this motion. Under this planning order-without parliamentary approval, I might add-the Prime Minister could manage and co-ordinate the national information services. What are the national information services? Does this mean that freedom of the press will be suspended by a declaration, an edict or an order of the Prime Minister?


Steve Eugene Paproski: They do it in Russia.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Is that the national information service?
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) could control and regulate farm production and food trade, both internal and external. Has that matter been debated with the farmers of Canada? Have they debated the fact that the Minister of Agriculture can control agricultural production and distribution?
When we discussed the Constitution we talked about mobility rights. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) would have the power under this order to control the registration and movement of civilian manpower and "arrange any required international manpower transactions".
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) could control all fuel production, assess national and regional requirements, establish such priorities as may be required and regulate international and external trade.
The next power to which I will refer is possibly the one which has been focused on most acutely in the public, and that is that the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) would establish and operate civilian internment camps and, if necessary, by "the selective reduction and transfer of the present population". Those words need some interpretation.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: The RCMP are not involved either.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: What does it mean? Are the RCMP involved?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: No, they are not.

April 1, 1982
Emergency Planning


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The minister has been asked in this House whether he is already working on the setting up of internment camps. He has been very coy in his answers because he does not want to answer definitively yes, that is what he is doing. However, if we follow the logic of the hon. member who just spoke-he said this is only for good planning-we wonder if this is being planned as well, and if it is not, is this then outside the scope of good planning? For example, the Solicitor General was asked recently whether he has already determined which prison population can be moved out so that civilian populations can be moved in. He chose not to answer that either.
People might say this is simply a scare tactic. If that charge is valid, why did the government not follow up on the commitment the Prime Minister has made since 1970 to bring legislation into this House? Why, in the stealth of night behind closed doors in cabinet, did a regulation have to be passed?


Norman Kelly: Maybe it was in the stealth of day.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Surreptitiously.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: No matter what time of day it was, it was wrong, and the reason hon. members opposite are back pedalling as rapidly as they can is that Canadians are very conscious of the fact that when their civil rights are in jeopardy, there will be a reaction. People will react against any government which appears to take powers unto itself which should be left to the people.
People might think we are over-reacting because "it can't happen in Canada".


Steve Eugene Paproski: Don't kid yourself!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Hon. members of this House have different backgrounds. I am not for a minute trying to equate this government with governments in other countries because I do not think that is a fair tactic. However, I want to put something before the House because someone has said that the only protection of civil rights is the constant vigilance of the electorate to maintain those rights. Why is it that Canadians who have ethnic backgrounds react so quickly to this kind of situation? They do so because they carry the scars of their own backgrounds. They carry the scars of bitter experiences in which governments have moved against people and the rights of those people. 1 want to tell the government very clearly that democratic rights can be removed very easily, and that can be seen to be very justifiable. However, a question remains as to whether the general public is willing to give up certain rights for the nebulous concept of immediate security. Many governments have sold the concept of restriction of civil rights for the illusory promise of security.
I said that many of us react because of our backgrounds. My own people, who were welcomed by this country, were able to escape, but some of our family members did not. My uncle, now passed on, spent 22 years in a Soviet internment camp. His crime? He was of the wrong political persuasion. What was that persuasion? He had never been involved in public life or political action. His crime was that he was a land owner. He
had property. It was not even his property, it was his father's, and because he was the eldest, he expected to inherit it. He felt he had a responsibility to his father to stay on that land, and he paid for it with 22 years of his life. His children, who happen to be my relatives, still cannot move back to the Crimea where the family once lived. They have never been back, and today they still live in Kazakhstan, in the so-called virgin lands, because of the crime of their father in that he was a land owner.
I am repeating myself because I do not want what 1 am saying to be equated with what this government or any Canadian government is doing. I am simply saying that all of us in the House must be vigilant and must not exchange supposed security for our rights. That is dangerous, extremely dangerous. The reason the government is in trouble on this issue is not necessarily to be found in all its provisions. The reason rather, is that the government chose again to act by order in council. The government did not see the need and definitely did not take the action of bringing the emergency order into the House in legislative form.
One must ask the question: how many times does the issue of government by regulation have to be expounded on the floor? When will the government learn that every time it does this it removes a little more of the rights of Canadians and of the responsibilities they have given to their representatives on this floor.
This issue is extremely critical in the minds of Canadians today because they are worried about their economic security. They are worried about the world scene in terms of a nuclear holocaust. They are convinced that they should not allow government to trample over their rights through orders in council and regulations for the supposed security and orderly planning which the government indicates is inherent in this emergency order. I commend the members of the House who have forced the government into debate through this mechanism. I regret that again legislation was not seen to be the best vehicle to bring the issue to the floor of the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It was called to the attention of the House that according to Standing Order 48(2). I must now interrupt the debate, 90 minutes having expired. At this point a minister on behalf of the government-and I believe the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) seeks unanimous consent to be recognized on behalf of the government-has five minutes to reply, followed by the mover of the motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David P. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker-
April 1, 1982


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) rising on a point of order?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, 1 am rising on a point of order so that the House will realize that the practice of a parliamentary secretary replying for a minister designated by the rules will not be taken as a precedent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair asked for unanimous consent of the House, recognizing that it was necessary, and there appeared to be unanimous consent.


Erik Nielsen: There is in fact unanimous consent. I simply stated that this should not be taken as a precedent.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for its consent.
1 assure the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) that we will not assume this to be a precedent. I am simply batting for the minister because unavoidably he is unable to be here.
I regret that this issue has aroused a number of unfortunate concerns in the minds of hon. members of the House and of Canadians as a whole. Some of the things which have been said really represent a misunderstanding. I do not question the intentions of the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) or of the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp). I think some of the statements which have been made are misleading. I do not think they are deliberately misleading but they are misleading. 1 should like to point out a couple of facts.
First, obviously the order in council cannot give government any powers it does not already have. It has been suggested today that the government is taking powers unto itself by virtue of this order in council. That is simply not correct. The order in council designates to various ministers the lines of jurisdiction to which they should be looking, in terms of the areas for which they are expected to have plans drawn up.
Second, it is very important to bear in mind that the order in council is not a brand new one. It is a revision of a 1965 order in council. 1 have read the 1965 order quite carefully. In fact there are previous orders going back to the 1940s, which I have also read quite carefully. They were not as comprehensive as the 1965 order in council. In the 1965 order there was reference to internment camps in wording identical to this one. It was delegated to the minister of justice in the 1965 order as opposed to the solicitor general, but it is in there; there is nothing new about it. What I am saying is that obviously the order was on the books the entire time the government, of which the hon. member for Provencher was a minister, was in power. If there was something in it which offended them about internment camps, they should have cancelled the order. But it was on the books the entire time they were in government. With regard to the internment camp issue, it would only come into force in the event of war. If Part I and Part II of the schedule are read carefully, that point can be quite clearly understood.
Reference was made today to vigilance on the part of the government and of the Canadian people. Can anyone seriously
Emergency Planning
suggest that the government would be living up to its obligations if it had no plans to deal with emergencies in the country? I would suggest not. It is incumbent upon the government to have in place plans to deal with certain emergencies which in fact could arise.
With regard to the motion before us today, is the government trying to hide anything? No, we are not trying to hide anything. We are agreeable to the motion. As hon. members know, we cannot table the documents until they have been translated. They are quite voluminous. Translation has been under way for some time but is not yet completed. I had discussions with other members of the House and the consensus was that we would be agreeable to an order which could be issued if the House gave its unanimous consent, indicating that the papers be tabled as soon as the translation is completed. If unanimous consent is not forthcoming on that, then we would vote for the motion. We have nothing to hide. Canadians have nothing to fear. This is good, sound planning with regard to possible emergencies-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired. The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen).


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the outset that I have no problem accepting the validity of the word of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith). I think he was sincere in saying that the government was willing to turn the papers over. However, I am not willing to accept the word of the PCO or the PMO on this, which I think is the greater concern. 1 put this motion to the House last fall. The government could have been getting these documents ready since then, if it were serious about it.


Erik Nielsen: That is six months.


Benno Friesen: I put the motion on the floor because the government's argument has been that this is in preparation for an emergency. If in fact that is the case, the government could have begun with legislation out of which regulations would have flowed. The government has had plenty of time. As the parliamentary secretary said, the government has taken this from the 1965 order. I have read the 1965 order as well as this one. I would say with respect to the hon. member that this is not a simple redrafting. It is an entirely new order, if one makes a simple comparison between the 1965 order and this one.
If in fact there is no national emergency, then the government has time to bring forward legislation. If there is an emergency, then people have the right to know the nature of it, if the government really has trust in Canadians. There are some serious questions in the minds of Canadians, not the least of which rests upon a bedrock series of betrayals as the public sees it, from the leadership of the government. It is not simply this order which has betrayed the trust of Canadians; it is a long series of them. This is the culmination of those betrayals which the Canadian people feel.

April 1, 1982
Emergency Planning
I would add that it is the introduction of the new Constitution that raises questions. My friend and colleague, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) would have liked to have spoken on this and asked what the effect of this order would be on Clause 11, subclause (g), of that new Constitution, which reads:
-not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act, or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law-
Whatever that means. Are we now subject to international law? Subclause (g) continues:
-or was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations.
Just yesterday I raised an issue with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) regarding Crown prerogative. What are the limits of Crown prerogative? The Prime Minister said to me here in the House, as reported in Hansard at page 16005, the following:
Certainly I am on sound ground in saying that any prerogative, royal or otherwise, can be limited by statute.
There is no statute, Mr. Speaker. Is that not saying that there is no limit to the Crown prerogative which the Prime Minister could invoke in times that he deems to be a matter of national emergency?
When the co-chairman of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments wrote to the Prime Minister, the letter was redirected to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard). That letter confirms the fact that Crown prerogative would have precedent over any other aspect of these provisions.
We have a choice in our country and that is whether we are going to be governed by man or by law. It has been the history of our land and all democratic societies that freedom rests upon law. The reality of Crown prerogative within the loose context of these provisions indicates that we are easily becoming the victims of rule by man. 1 hope we never come to the stage in our country where a man, under the provisions of this law-this order in council-has control over censorship, and has control over all the powers of information. Surely the public needs information in order to make decisions. The public can be easily swayed, and if we are going to be ruled by a man with both kinds of powers that 1 mentioned, then surely we are falling victims to the powers of a dictatorship.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Northumber-land-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, my point of order has to do with the comments made by the parliamentary secretary in offering an alternative motion of tabling the papers, when available, in both official languages. He went on to say that if the opposition would not accept that, the government would vote for the motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is making an argument. He does not have a point of order.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I am coming to the Official Languages Act.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Question.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is making a point of argument which could have been made during the course of debate. I have to rule at this point that he does not have a point of order.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) is rising on a question of privilege.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, the Official Languages Act was not debated under this motion.
1 am talking about tabling. I assume from what the parliamentary secretary said that the government would agree to table these documents.


An hon. Member:: Question.


Mr. Dionne (Nothumberland-Miramichi):: But he has said
they are not available in both official languages.


An hon. Member:: That is the government's problem.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has made his point. However, at this stage the Chair feels obliged to put the question.
Is the House ready for the question?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Instead of showing the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan) as being the seconder of the motion, I would appreciate if the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) could appear in the record as being the seconder instead. The hon. member for Hillsborough is not in the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is out of order. The Chair read a record of the motion as originally put to the House. The record of the proceedings of the House will so indicate.
Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.
April 1, 1982


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


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Madam Speaker:: It being past six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 6.09 p.m. the House took recess.
	YEAS	
	Messrs.	
Appolloni	Ferguson	Marceau(Mrs.)	Fisher	MasseAxworthy	Flis	MastersBachand	For restall	MayerBaker	Fretz	McCauley(Gander-Twillingatc)	Friesen	McCuishBaker	Frith	McDermid(Nepean-Carleton)	Fulton	McKenzieBeatty	Gamble	McLeanBeauchamp-Niquet	Gass	McMillan(Mrs.)	Gendron	McRaeBegin (Miss)	Gimaiel	MillerBenjamin	Gourde	MitgesBerger	(Levis)	MurtaBlaikie	Guilbault	NicholsonBlenkarn	Gurbin	(Miss)Bloomfield	Heap	NickersonBockstael	Henderson	NielsenBosley	Herbert	NystromBossy	Hopkins	OberleBujold	Howie	OgleBurghardt	Hudecki	OrlikowCaccia	Huntington	OuelletCampbell	Irwin	Paproski(M iss)	Isabelle	Parker(South West Nova)	Jarvis	PennerCampbell	Jewett (Miss)	Peterson(LaSalle)	Joyal	Por tela neeCampbell	Kaplan	Prud'homme(Cardigan)	Keeper	ReganCardiff	Kelly	RiisChretien	Kempling	RobinsonClark	Kilgour	(Etobicoke-Lakeshore)(Yellowhead)	Killens (Mrs.)	RoseCollenette	King	RossiCooper	Korchinski	RoyCorbett	Lajoie	SargeantCote (Mrs.)	Lalonde	SchroderCousineau	Lamontagne	ScottDantzer	Landers	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Darling	Lang	ScottDaudlin	Laniel	(Victoria-Haliburton)Deans	Lapierre	Skellyde Corneille	Lapointe	Smithde Jong	(Charlevoix)	SpeyerDemers	Lawrence	TardifDcniger	LeBlanc	TaylorDingwall	Leduc	TessierDion	Lefebvre	ThomsonDionne	Lewis	Tousignant(Chicoutimi)	Lewycky	TowersDubois	MacBain	TurnerDupont	MacDonald	VankoughnetDupras	(Miss)	WatsonEllis	Mackasey	WeatherheadElzinga	MacLaren	WhelanEpp	MacLellan	WiseEthier	Malepart	WrightFennell	Maltais	Yanakis-160.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-97, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977, and to provide for payments to certain provinces, as reported, (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and Motion No. 1 (Miss MacDonald) and Motion No. 2 (Mr. Blaikie).
Donald Alex Blenkarn: This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, we were treated to the hon. member from Gloucester (Mr. Breau)-who was privileged to go around the country with the fiscal arrangements task force, its report being known as the Breau report-coming before the House and trying to justify what he said was political morality. He indicated that, despite the terms of that report, which clearly dealt with what is described now as revenue guarantee, he was prepared to sell that principle out. He was prepared to sell out the principle that the report sets out in Chapter X. 1 read the relevant parts of that chapter into the record on second reading. In political morality one must wonder about the attitude of the member for Gloucester, particularly when he compares the settlement eventually arrived at with his province. He says somewhere along the line "We lost, we lost a great deal of money on established programs; but we picked it up on equalization." The fact is, if he would read his own report-he was the chairman of the task force-with respect to equalization he would find that the province of New Brunswick was diddled out of equalization and is being diddled now,

April 1, 1982
Federal Transfers to Provinces
with his concurrence and consent, with respect to the established programs financing act.
The only interpretation, Mr. Speaker, that can possibly be given to the member for Gloucester of his performance here this afternoon is that he is looking for a cabinet position. He is looking for a cabinet position and probably he is not going to get it. He is prepared to sell out his province, sell out his university, sell out the hospitals, because he thinks he is getting more for them under this deal than he would get if he stood behind his own report, a report to which he should be proud to attach his name. I and other members of the committee sat with him as our chairman, and we came up with a report that was virtually unanimous, saying very clearly and unequivocally that any cuts in the established programs would cut into muscle and sinew, and would make those programs not viable.
From time to time, Mr. Speaker, as it goes in political contest, when you have a member from one party representing one part of the city and a member from another party representing another part of the city, we often find we are in debate locally. So I want to make some reference to the speech made to the House this afternoon by the hon. member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher).
He was refreshingly honest. He made no bones about it. He said clearly that $937 million in cash is being taken from the provinces that would normally go to health and post-secondary education this year, and $1,058 million next year. He said quite clearly the government could not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) because we are in a period of restraint. He said the government had no intention of spending that kind of money on post-secondary education and health care.
He was not refreshingly honest, unfortunately, with respect to the question of restraint. He followed the attitude expressed by the government in that respect, restraint in every program except the programs that mean most to the people of Canada. We see no restraint in the CBC. Their budget goes up by $73 million. We see no restraint in C1DA. Its budget goes up $146 million. We see no restraint on government advertising. We will have more programs with Canada geese flying across the TV screens. We see no restraint with regard to the programming for the forthcoming Royal visit. We see no restraint with the Enterprise Development Board which is blowing $125 million on Consolidated Computer. We see no restraint in the enterprise development loan guarantee program and the Enterprise Development Board. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) clearly admits this will cost us millions and millions of dollars as loans are defaulted on one after another because of inept, incompetent and incapable management.
We see no restraint with respect to guarantees under the Export Development Program, for example, guarantees to make 10 per cent or less money available to Algerians to build monuments to the revolution. One colleague suggests it was two bananas and a doughnut around it and a McDonald's sign
on the bottom. This is what our money is being spent on. There is no restraint on money to subsidize interest on loans of over $600 million to the Soviet Union to build gas pipeline facilities.
The restraint is on what the people of Canada want. Talk to them. Talk to them in your riding, Mr. Speaker, or the ridings of Lincoln, Parkdale or Hamilton West. Ask them whether they would rather have restraint on foreign aid programs or restraint on medicare.
The people of Canada are not concerned about which government pays the bill. There is only one taxpayer. The established programs financing act is part of the fiscal arrangements of all of Canada. It happens to be convenient in order to spread the risk in Canada. It happens to be convenient in order to make sure that we have decent medical and postsecondary education facilities across the country. That is the way we organize a co-operative federalism.
This government does not give a damn about co-operative federalism. Because these programs may, under the Constitution, fall within the ambit of provincial responsibility, the government is prepared to say they are open to drastic cuts, almost a billion dollars this year, $1 billion next year and $2 billion in two years. That is the attitude of this government clearly expressed by the hon. member for Mississauga North. That is where the restraint is going to be.
That hon. member will have restraint even in his part of Mississauga where a new hospital is to be built. He will have us restrain the growth of that hospital as well as the medical fees to doctors. There will be reduced services for his constituents and mine. We live in the same city. That is the restraint he would have.
He is quite prepared to vote for more foreign aid, a larger budget for the CBC and more Liberal advertising bunko on television. He is prepared to vote and to recommend, as his minister does, that medical services be cut back, that funds for Erindale College and the University of Toronto be cut back. He would have cutbacks for young people trying to build a future because the expenditures are not made directly by the federal government but are financed in co-operation with the provincial governments.
Some effort was made in the bunko leading up to this proposal by the Government of Canada that the provinces were not carrying their weight. The purpose of our amendment is to allow a task force to inquire into that in order to find out how these established programs should be financed. We say there should be another two years so this can be properly looked at.
I want to bring to the attention of hon. members evidence produced before tha task force committee with respect to medical services. The federal government's share of provincial health programs was 47.9 per cent in 1979-80. In 1980-81 it was 47.6 per cent. As the years go by, this becomes smaller. Indeed, the outlook prepared by the Department of National Health and Welfare indicates that even if the established programs financing stays the same, the federal share of health
April 1, 1982

financing will continue to decrease. Therefore, all this talk about the provinces not carrying their weight with respect to health care financing is nonsense. All the members opposite have to do is to read the documentation produced by the Department of National Health and Welfare to the task force and produced on April 14, 1981, in, of all things, a slide presentation.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Slide?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Yes, to sell us on the deal.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I thought it was a sly presentation.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: It is a slime presentation today, but the truth is what they said in April, 1981. It is slime today because they do not say the same now as they said in April, 1981. Today, in the mirage and smoke and mirrors of tax points, they say they are not cutting. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), bless her soul, is totally incapable of calculating anything. As a matter of fact, she takes pride in the fact that she cannot make a calculation. She says in the House that she is increasing health expenditures by 13.4 per cent. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance says that we are ripping them off by $937 million this year. The Minister of National Health and Welfare says there will be a 13.4 per cent increase and he says there will be $937 million less.
Well, it does not take a great deal of intelligence to read the figures-maybe grade three learning. The hon. member for Mississauga North has at least that level of education and he can tell us the correct figures. In fact, he has told us the correct figures and perhaps he could go to the ministry of health and give its minister some correct figures.
While he is doing this, he might as well talk to the minister in charge of lotteries. I say the minister in charge of lotteries because the Secretary of State (Mr. Regan) has abandoned any claim he has to represent the interests of post-secondary education. He is the minister of lotteries and the minister of "gimmes", the quick buck fix. He has no intention of giving fair consideration to what is happening. He indicates that education spending is rising by 12 per cent, but the member for Mississauga North is correct-the budgets are being cut and cut drastically. These cuts will apply to every student, teacher and everyone who wishes to progress and better himself in our society.
We hear stories of libraries being cut back and publications going down the drain. Witnesses who have appeared before the committee have told us that. Essential community courses such as English as a second language are being cut out because they are no longer essential. People are told it is no longer essential because they speak the language of the country. This is the kind of attitude which the government takes toward development which is necessary to make our country grow and prosper again.
Cuts are taking place in some of the most essential services. These cuts are occurring because of the intention of government to restrain its expenditures. There is no restraint by this government. Its intention is to eliminate moneys over which
Federal Transfers to Provinces
they do not have absolute control. It is an attempt to make the provinces pick up a deficit in some areas so that it can have a larger deficit in other areas. The government is not showing restraint; it is only attempting to transfer deficits.
The hon. member for Mississauga North said that maybe I am a spender. We are not talking about a change in spending patterns. We are discussing the question of established programs. This is a new spending program for new foreign aid ventures, new spending for new CBC development, new spending for new advertising ventures. This is ensuring that the medical health care systems we have are retained and that the established education programs which we have organized in Canada remain.
When our party proposed that the existing programs be extended for two years, it is because there has been a feeling across the country that the provinces have not paid their share over the years. Therefore, if that is the case, we make the same suggestion as the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada has made. Let us have a task force on education to find out who should finance these programs. Should they be financed by a voucher system, as suggested by the Secretary of State? Should they be financed as they presently are? Should they be financed by a 50-50 contribution between federal and provincial governments? Perhaps they should be financed by direct grants to universities and colleges from the federal government, but certainly we should have an inquiry into the subject, which is the reason for proposing a two-year hoist on the matter. Any sensible Liberal member would accept that suggestion.
The same argument applies to health causes. We have evidence of people having to wait from three to six months for a hospital room in order to get to the operating room. We have evidence of people who are in fact dying because they cannot be operated on for a heart condition. We have evidence of people who must lie on stretchers in hospital corridors and some who can only get into a hospital because of an emergency. These incidents must stop. I suggest that the government members, and particularly backbenchers in the government, must fulfil their obligation to their constituents and recognize what is happening to our established programs.


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have no intention of letting some of the comments of the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) go unchallenged. Let us set one matter straight for the record immediately. In the report to which he referred he used the words "virtually unanimous". When a recommendation is not accepted unanimously all we know is that it was approved by a majority of the members.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: It was unanimous.


Harold Thomas Herbert: I will repeat here what I said in the committee. As far as the revenue guarantee is concerned, I was opposed to its continuance. I said that in committee previously,

April 1, 1982
Federal Transfers to Provinces
said that in committee today and I am repeating it on the floor of the House tonight. I was not in favour of the continuance of the revenue guarantee which has already been continued for five years too long.
With respect to the effect of the discontinuance, since 1972 the provinces were supposed to readjust their financing by themselves within the ensuing five-year period as they have the right to levy their own taxes as they see fit. There is absolutely no logical reason at all for continuing this payment.
However, I would like to make an important point. It is that the revenue guarantee was approximately $800 million this year. If the hon. member for Mississauga South is honest he will know that in the spring of this past year, 1981, when we were reviewing the amount which was being transferred to the provinces in the past year-we had the estimates-we were looking at transfers in fiscal equalization amounting to approximately $3.4 billion, of which $1.7 billion was going to my own province of Quebec.
What the opposition has chosen to ignore is that a program of equalization is based on the capacity of various provinces. During this past year there has been a change in the amount that has been paid due to necessity. In fact, the province of Quebec during this year which has just terminated on March 31, 1982, will have received from the equalization program a total of $2.1 billion, or $400 million more. For the total program, including all Maritime provinces, the increase alone was over $800 million. I am not referring to the increase that applies to the Canada Assistance Plan. If you consider those amounts combined, the amount that the provinces received extra in the last year which they could not possibly have counted upon at April 1, at the beginning of last year, is in excess of $1 billion. Therefore, anyone who does not talk about that but chooses to talk only about what they see as cuts on the other side is giving a false impression.
He made another point with which I do not agree. He said they want to dispose of the revenue guarantee, which they cannot control. Will he please acknowledge that post-secondary education funding is completely and unconditionally transferred? There is nothing which obliges the provinces to use these moneys for post-secondary education and, in fact, there are two provinces to which the federal government transfers more in cash than those provinces actually spend. I want that on the record too.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harold Thomas Herbert: Furthermore, when it comes to health care, we transfer a sum on a per capita basis or on a population basis. It is block funding but, in essence, right across the board we transfer an equivalent sum per province according to its population. Once again, although the funds are earmarked for a certain purpose, we do not decree the amount that should be spent on health care. That is a provincial decision, and if there is any reduction in services, the responsibility is one hundred per cent that of the provinces.
Today a very right wing group, the Canadian Medical Association, appeared before the committee and gave evidence which annoyed me intensely. I will quote some of its remarks as follows:
We see no reason why the Government of Canada must give every province exactly the same amount of money per capita for health care regardless of the health care needs or financial ability of the provinces. We see no reason why the Government of Canada should not promote reasonably comparable health services in every part of this country by providing 60 per cent or 70 per cent of health care costs in some provinces and only 40 per cent or 30 per cent in richer ones. Why not incorporate the principle of equalization into federal support of medicare? Why not establish a program earmarking federal health care funds directly related to the health care needs and inversely related to the fiscal capacity of the provinces?
I had to laugh when I heard that and after listening to the approach of that association today because it seemed to me that it would mean less money going to the richer provinces and more going to the poorer provinces, which is a means of equalization. I do not oppose that, but I merely say that if we take these figures and extrapolate them according to the populations of the richer and poorer provinces, the net effect will be a transfer of fewer dollars, and to me that does not make too much sense.
The point is that, in fact, the amount of money that has been transferred in the past year, which ended yesterday, has increased, by the very nature of the programs themselves, by more than $1 billion. That is $1 billion that the provincial governments could not have included in their budgets for this past fiscal year. And it is equally possible, depending on the way the economy goes in the ensuing year, that there could be equivalent increases.
Hon. members opposite continually harp on the fact than any reduction in services is a federal responsibility. First, the federal government does not control in any way the spending of funds for health care. Second, the federal government does not even earmark transfers for post-secondary education which, as I have indicated, in some cases amount to more than the amount spent by the provinces. The federal government transfers unconditionally all equalization payments to the provinces. When the federal government pays the bill for the Canada Assistance Plan, it writes the cheque according to the amount a province decides to spend. The decision in each one of those programs rests entirely with the provincial governments. As long as the federal government is transferring 20 per cent of its budget to provincial treasuries for responsibilities which are entirely provincial, I do not think the provinces should come back and spit in our face for our generosity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I was amazed at the speeches we heard, first from the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) and now from the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert). Any resemblance between the speech made here by the hon. member for Gloucester and the report of the all-party task force which he chaired is purely coincidental.
April 1, 1982

Let me spend a few moments dealing with the speech made by the hon. member for Vaudreuil. He was defending the action of the federal government as enunciated in this bill, which will mean that in the next five years the funds which the federal government has paid to the provinces-in block funds, but which originally were directed to help finance health care and post-secondary education-will be reduced by $5.7 billion.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Not true.


Mr. Gauthier:: Not true.


David Orlikow: The hon. member says it is not true. 1 have the figures. I do not mean the figures I used this afternoon which, as the hon. member for Gloucester said, were last November's figures. I have recent figures. Let me put on the record what the reduction for the province of Quebec will be in the next five years. It will not be a reduction in actual funds from what Quebec received this year but from the amount it would have received-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Ah, a reduction in the increase.


David Orlikow: It is the reduction from the amount Quebec would have received-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: A reduction in the increase.


David Orlikow: -if we had continued with the present formula. The reduction in the next five years for the province of Quebec will be $1,399 billion. Since I have been a Member of Parliament here in Ottawa, almost every day I have read either The Montreal Star, when it was being published, or the Montreal Gazette, and almost every day I read about cutbacks in hospital services in the province of Quebec. Almost every day I read about the increasingly difficult situation of universities, and particularly English universities in Quebec such as McGill University and Concordia University. I hope five years from now the hon. member for Vaudreuil is still around so that he can explain to his constituents why the services and the standard of education at McGill University, Concordia and Macdonald College have been cut the way they will be cut and why hospital services have been cut.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Blame the provinces. Put the blame on the provinces.


David Orlikow: I am told that Quebec is now the heaviest taxed province in the country.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: There is a socialist government in charge there.


David Orlikow: It will not do the people of Quebec very much good and it will not help them very much if they are told it is the provincial government which has to cut the services. The fact is that the standard of services for the people the hon. member for Vaudreuil represents will be cut very substantially because of the attitude he takes.
The hon. member for Gloucester tried to say this afternoon that the province of New Brunswick, his province, would not suffer. Well, the amount of money in the next five years that
Federal Transfers to Provinces
the province of New Brunswick will get less than the amount it would get under the formula we have had until now is $133 million.
I want to put on the record some of the conclusions of the all-party task force which the hon. member for Gloucester chaired. Let me read just a couple of paragraphs from a news report which appeared in The Globe and Mail the day after the report was tabled so that hon. members will not think I am somehow misrepresenting or editing unfairly what that task force, headed by the hon. member for Gloucester, said.


Ian Deans: You wouldn't do that. We would never think that of you.


David Orlikow: Let me quote from the article, as follows:
There is no fat left in federal-provincial spending on health, post-secondary education and social assistance programs, according to the parliamentary task force that has been investigating major shared-cost programs.
There is no fat, yet the federal government introduces this bill. I think the hon. member for Vaudreuil was on that committee.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: He signed it.


Ian Deans: He signed the document.


David Orlikow: But he is willing to go along with this very substantial reduction in federal funding. The article went on to say that there is:
-no fat in post-secondary education, no excess spending in social assistance, little redundancy on social services ... serious cuts in program funding would cut into muscle and sinew, not fat.
Federal cutbacks, the task force says, would almost certainly mean shifting the load. In health, this would mean more reliance on user charges and extra-billing; in education, higher tuition fees. "In either case, basic national objectives of equity and equality of access would suffer," the report says.
Another paragaph reads:
-there does not exist a long-term structural mismatch between the revenue capacities and expenditure responsibilities of the federal government. It cannot be claimed that the capacity of the federal government to raise revenues has reached a structural (as opposed to a political or discretionary) ceiling.
They are not alone. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), that great representative from my city, spoke at a meeting earlier this week in Winnipeg. In reference to the brief prepared by the Canadian Association of University Teachers, of which he was one of the less distinguished members before coming here, he said that the CAUT statement was full of hyperbole unsubstantiated by fact. He has not been away from the city of Winnipeg and his teaching role that long. He ought to know-and I am sure he does- that the university at which he taught is short of space. Its library is a disgrace and its laboratories have 50-year-old equipment. This is the situation of the university at which the minister taught. Also he knows that the new government of Manitoba was left with a deficit of almost $300 million when it took office a few months ago, and that the deficit will be larger

April
Federal Transfers to Provinces
this year. When the federal government cuts back on funding, which should have been allocated and directed as it was until a few years ago to post-secondary education, it will be difficult if not impossible for provincial governments, with the possible exception of the government of Alberta, to pick up the deficits with which they will be saddled by the federal government. Yet we have members of the task force-


Mr. Tousignant:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Ian Deans: There is nothing out of order.


David Orlikow: I do not mind.


Henri Tousignant: The hon. member is talking about deficits all over Canada as if the federal government were responsible for them. Is he trying to tell us now that if a woman becomes pregnant in Canada, it is the fault of the federal government?


Ian Deans: Listen, are you denying it?


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind answering questions with some common sense or of relevance. I cannot say that I heard anything relevant in the question just addressed to me.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We feel the same way you do.


David Orlikow: The Liberal federal government has a deficit. The Conservative government of Ontario has a deficit.


Henri Tousignant: The Saskatchewan government has a deficit.


David Orlikow: Yes, the NDP government of Saskatchewan has a deficit. Will we severely cut services so that they will not meet the needs of people, because we are afraid of deficits? We are saying that it is necessary to maintain and even to improve services. Even if deficits get bigger, we are prepared to accept it.
I should like to put on the record a few quotations from some of the presentations which were made to the parliamentary task force on federal-provincial fiscal arrangements. The task force did not arrive at its conclusions in some mysterious way or take its arguments out of thin air. Some of the most prestigious, knowledgeable organizations in Canada appeared before the task force and gave all the arguments as to why the federal government should not reduce its contribution to postsecondary education and health care as it is. The Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada appeared before the task force and in part indicated:
The task force rightly concluded that "... there is no fat left in the postsecondary education system ..." Provincial grants to universities since the introduction of EPF have in large part been below the rate of inflation.
It went on to argue that the federal government should continue to fund institutions as it has in the past.
I wish the Minister of Employment and Immigration were here because he frequently worked for the Social Planning Council of Winnipeg which also appeared before the task force. In part it said:
Obviously, the federal government cannot continue its commitment to minimum standards of human services and at the same time reduce expenditures in the social affairs envelope.
This is precisely what the government is doing. Then it went on to indicate:
Services currently funded by the Canada Assistance Plan and the Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons' Act, are widely admitted to be in their early developmental stages. Indeed, some services, such as home care, are not yet available in large parts of Canada. Clearly, minimum standards in these areas have not been reached and can never be achieved with expenditure reductions.
The council is calling for more expenditures, not just because they would improve services. In fact, many of those expenditures would save money. Providing a part-time worker to go into the home of a senior citizen who cannot manage by himself may cost $25 per day under home care. It would cost $200 or $250 per day for the same person to be in hospital, as so many of them are. We should not be cutting back or reducing our services. We need to improve our services, to change them, and to take another serious look at how they are doing.
I should like to refer to the presentation of The Canadian Council on Social Development to the parliamentary task force. The organization includes in its membership virtually every government, private and non-profit agency in the field of social development. It is highly respected, and it should be. Many federal government departments have representatives in that organization. Among other things, it said:
-the impact of specific federal reductions will be generalized and spread over all social programs by provincial budgetary processes. Since health, welfare, and education programs compete for the same allocation of provincial treasuries, the loss will be shared across all three sectors and the unpopularity of resulting tax increases will be blamed on the three sectors equally.
We will see a reduction of services. It cannot be any other way. We know that seven of the ten provinces now have deficits. Faced with substantial cuts in funding by the federal government, what are their choices? Should they raise taxes, which is almost impossible at a time like this? What about user fees? It is not so many years ago that people who had someone in the family afflicted with a long-term illness were wiped out. I remember when in 1956 someone in my family spent three or four months in the hospital. I had to sell my house because hospitalization costs then were not covered by a universal plan. Thousands of people in Canada face the same situation. Tens of thousands of people in the United States- and not just poor ones-have been wiped out because of longterm illnesses in their families. The tuition fees in some of the United States universities today are running $12,000 to $14,000 per year.
If we are to have universities in Canada with any stature, particularly in have-not provinces such as New Brunswick represented by the hon. member for Gloucester, or Manitoba from which I come, it will be because the federal government over the years helped to build those institutions. In 1976-77 the federal government put close to $2 billion into post-secondary education. What we will see now with the passage of this bill
April 1, 1982

will be a steady and inexorable decline in the standards of our universities and in the kinds of health services provided the people of Canada, about which all parties have been very proud until now. However, we are beginning to see the dismantling of most of the things that we accomplished in the last 25 or 30 years. I will not say that this Liberal government is being as brutal as President Reagan is in the United States, but it is a matter of degree, not a very big difference in degree. What we are seeing, however, are the first steps in the same kind of process, that has been such a disaster in the United States.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member accept a serious question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Would the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) accept a question from the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert)?


David Orlikow: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) recognize that the province of Manitoba is one of the three western provinces which restricts entry of out-of-province students to 5 per cent of its university enrolment, whereas the two largest central provinces have something in the order of 30 per cent enrolment of out-ofprovince students? Would the hon. member try to get his newly elected government to change its 5 per cent limit on out-of-province students in order that there can be fair sharing across this country for students who would like to transfer from one province to another?


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the fact to which the hon. member refers. I am not saying that it is not true, I am saying that I am not aware of the fact. If the hon. member will give me the details, I will be happy to take up the matter with the government of Manitoba. I want to say to the hon. member that there are many things about education with which I am not happy. I am not happy about the very high fees which some universities are charging foreign students, which means that only students from wealthy countries and wealthy families can come to our universities. If the hon. member wants to join me in that crusade, I will be happy to have him with me.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The question is on Motion No. 1 standing in the name of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald).
Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those in favour of the motion please say yea.
Federal Transfers to Provinces


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those opposed to the motion please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 75, a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The question is on Motion No. 2 standing in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie). Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those opposed to the motion please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 75, a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Order, please. The House will now proceed to the consideration of the motion of the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp).


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That Bill C-97, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977 and to provide for payments to certain provinces, be amended in Clause 2
(a)	by adding immediately after line 19 at page 7 the following:
"(7.1) Notwithstanding sub-sections (1) to (5) and (7), but subject to sub-section (8), the fiscal equalization payment that may be paid to. a province
(a)	For fiscal years that begin on April 1, 1982 and for the duration of this part shall not be less than the amount equal to the sum of the percentage increase in fiscal equalization payments of the province with the second lowest percentage increase in entitlements in the absence of this section and that provinces' fiscal equalization payment for the fiscal year that begins on April 1, 1982, if any,
(b)	In the event that a province's fiscal equalization entitlement for a year commencing after April 1, 1982 in the absence of sub-section (7.1) declines, its fiscal equalization entitlement under this section shall be reduced by the same amount";
(b)	by striking out line 24 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor;
"determined under sub-section (6), (7) or (7.1)";
and
(c)	by striking out line 29 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"(7.1) for that year".


Some hon. Members:: Yea.

Federal Transfers to Provinces
He said: Mr. Speaker, in view of the time this evening-and I know other members of the House want to speak-I will try to be as brief as possible.
The House might be somewhat surprised in terms of who the mover and the seconder of this amendment are, but I want to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) for seconding the motion.
This matter arises from the situation that has developed through the negotiations in federal-provincial fiscal arrangements as they affect Manitoba particularly. I said during second reading debate, and others in this House have said it as well, that I did not want to be provincial or parochial in the debate, but when one looks at the figures in terms of the equalization formula, one finds that without question the formula impacts on Manitoba most severely. People who have studied the formula, quite apart from those who come from the province in which I reside, generally agree about the impact. You will find there is a non-partisan approach to this matter in terms of the Progressive Conservative Party, the New Demo-cractic Party here, and in fact, members of the Manitoba legislature, and it is on that basis that I raise it.
The debate that has taken place so far, and I do not want to reflect on the preceding voice vote, has generally focused on the established programs financing and cutbacks in that field. That matter has been dealt with very adequately in the amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). In terms of waiting for two years, they were not simply there to delay for the sake of delay but to be utilized for the purpose of negotiation, accommodation and agreement. That was the purpose. But what is unique is that the equalization formula is the major crux of the problem faced in Manitoba.
Prior to the negotiations that took place, we had the ten-province base. Then, when the federal government came in with its proposal, it brought in the Ontario base. The fear at that time was that Ontario as a province could become eligible for equalization payments. The argument then was that Ontario should not be eligible for equalization and, no matter what the financial factors were in Ontario relative to the rest of the country, Ontario would always be the base. That obviously reflected negatively on the province of Ontario, in fact, on the formula generally. Consequently, there was an amendment whereby a five-province base was used, the so-called have provinces.
The province I want to reflect on today is the province of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, we heard in committee today the finance minister of Manitoba saying a number of startling things. He pointed out that his province would continue to face record high deficits for the next five years. We do not know what they will be, but the general projection is a minimum of $300 million per year. This will impact severely on that province's taxpayers not only in the sense of increased taxation but, equally importantly, on the ability to maintain national standards. That is another reason for the amendment by the
April 1, 1982
hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. The fact is that Manitobans would have to lower their standards of health care and post-secondary education, which is unacceptable. The question then remains whether adjustments could be made in the transitional period to lessen the impact on Manitoba.
The Manitoba finance minister also said that while their deficit would increase, the federal government's deficit would decrease. 1 do not agree with the second part of that equation. When I look at the federal government's deficit position, my fear is that it is going to increase for the following reasons. As the economy flattens out, the Minister of Finance's projections in his November 12 budget concerning the deficit are out the window. In addition, the National Energy Program has had the effect of lowering the output of the have provinces. The province of Alberta, on which a lot of revenue projections were based, has not seen the growth projected in the NEP and in the energy agreement between Alberta and Canada.
Mr. Speaker, could we have some order?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Those hon. members who are carrying on a conversation can perhaps do it behind the curtain and give the hon. member who has the floor the opportunity to complete his remarks.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying, I think the reduced deficit projections are now out the window. So what does the federal government do? Is there a transitional point whereby, for example, Manitoba would not be affected as greatly as it is under the five-province base? A number of us have looked at that question, and that is why you have the amendment. I said I would not be too long because I do not want to infringe on the time of other members, but the amendment proposes the following. I know there have been meetings with the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), and I think even he has been somewhat surprised at the negative impact the equalization formula has had on Manitoba. What is being proposed is that the percentage share of equalization for Manitoba could not be less than the second worst percentage of any given year, relative to the other have-not provinces. The figures show, Mr. Speaker, that in 1982-83, Manitoba would receive equalization payments of 10.7 per cent, when the national average will be 13.6 per cent. In 1983-84 it would receive 10.7, when the national average will be 11.3 per cent. In 1984-85 it would receive 10.7 per cent, when the national average will be 10.5 per cent. In 1985-86 it would receive 10.7 per cent, when the national average will be 10.3 per cent, and in 1986-87 it will be 10.1 per cent, when the national average will be 10.3 per cent.
You will find, Mr. Speaker, and I mention this because of the transitional period-which is why the hon. member's amendment appeals to me because it impacts very heavily on Manitoba in the first two years-that we would be willing, if that amendment were carried, to let this amendment go by because I think we would then have taken care of that first two-year period. So in order to meet that transition problem for Manitoba, we are proposing to use the second worst percentage formula, if I can describe it in that fashion. If
April 1, 1982

one looks at the formula today, Manitoba would lose $582 million net over five years. It was $747 million, but the Minister of Finance recognized the disparity and the loss has been reduced. So there has been recognition that a problem exists. I am simply saying that Manitoba taxpayers cannot afford to be locked into an equalization formula for five years which will impact on their ability to maintain national standards.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, there is the question of whether the amendment is in order. I know members who serve on the committee are familiar with the argument that, on the basis of the House rules and because it involves some $300 million over the life of the formula, the amendment is in violation of the royal prerogative in that the expenditure of public funds has to be a government initiative. Well, I accept that. If the government, for example, wants to move this amendment, or if it wants to modify it, I would be willing to look at the modification. I would be willing to have the government, after the discussions it has had, move an amendment similar to this one. The seconder of the motion can speak for himself, but I think he would want to consider that as well. We are simply saying that we do not approach this on a provincial, parochial or selfish basis. Rather, if we believe in equalization as it is to be entrenched in the Constitution, then surely it stands to reason that before we do that on April 16 we must have in place an equalization formula which is in fact not an equalization formula. We could have used any formula, for example the Alberta formula, and then everyone would have been eligible. I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fisher)-and he is in the House tonight-that if he is willing to examine this question from the suggested perspectives, 1 would be willing to discuss with him what modifications should be made. If he wants to adopt the amendment as his own, I accept that, but I say to him that the manner in which this equalization formula impacts on the taxpayer of Manitoba is not fair. Therefore, I commend the amendment to members of the House.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, as the seconder of the motion now before the House I would like to add to what the hon. member for Prove'ncher (Mr. Epp) has said about the reason this particular amendment is so important. It is only days before the new Constitution is proclaimed here in Canada. Equalization payments to the provinces will be included as part of the very Constitution of Canada. If we are able to proclaim that particular section of the Constitution with any kind of integrity and consistency, then I think the amendment now before the House must be approved by the House. The amendment would redress the way in which the province of Manitoba is now affected by the proposed equalization formula.
Before I go into any more of the arguments, I would like to put on the record what I know other hon. members have stated, even at second reading. I would like to tell the House about the way in which Manitoba is treated so unequally by this formula. In the first year of this five-year agreement, the percentage increase for Manitoba will be 9.9 per cent. What will it be for the other have-not provinces? It will range from
Federal Transfers to Provinces
21 per cent to 10 per cent. In the second year of this five-year agreement, the percentage increase for Manitoba will be 6 per cent. What will it be for the other have-not provinces? It will range from 14.4 per cent to 10.7 per cent. The third year is when Manitoba will really get kicked in the teeth. Our percentage increase will be 2.8 per cent. What will it be for the other have-not provinces? It will be 11.3 per cent, 11.2 per cent, 11.8 per cent, 11.4 per cent and 10.7 per cent, compared to our 2.8 per cent increase. In the fourth year, what will be the percentage increase for Manitoba? It will be 3.8 per cent. Again, we are looking at figures of 11 per cent and 10 per cent for all the other have-not provinces. In the fifth year we will get an increase comparable to the other provinces, around 10 per cent.
The over-all effect is that over the five-year agreement Manitoba will receive a percentage increase in equalization payments of 37.2 per cent. The next lowest will be Quebec, at 66.1 per cent. That is from 37 per cent to 66.1 per cent. The other four have-not provinces, the Atlantic provinces, will all receive percentage increases in the 80 per cent range.
I simply ask, where is the justice? Where is the equalization in this? Where is the equality in this particular kind of proposal? What madness, vindictiveness, error or absence of mind led the government to develop and then to propose a formula which would treat a particular province, the province of Manitoba, in such a way? I am simply baffled. I am sincerely baffled as to why the government picked this particular formula out of all the formulas it could have picked. Other formulas would still have had the effect of reducing the government's over-all payments through equalization but would not have singled out any province as much as the province of Manitoba has been by this particular formula.
I therefore plead with hon. members on the government side to consider seriously the fact that this amendment has been moved with the support of both opposition parties. The government ought to consider making this amendment its own and bring it in before this bill goes forward.
What would be the effect of the amendment? The effect of the amendment would not be to bring Manitoba up to the highest level, to make sure that Manitoba gets exactly as much as everyone else. We realize that the formula, in order to stay a formula, must be treated with a certain amount of respect. Manitoba differs, in its fiscal capacity, from the Atlantic provinces. All this amendment asks is that in every year of that five-year agreement, Manitoba be paid a percentage increase which is at least as much as that paid the second worst province out of the six have-not provinces. That seems to me to be a rather humble proposal. We are not asking to be elevated to the top. All we are asking is that Manitoba be treated the same as the second worst province, as it works out in this formula.
I do not see any reason the government cannot accept this proposal. I want to put it very bluntly to the only two Liberal members from Manitoba. If this amendment is not passed and if the government does not make this amendment its own, I

April 1, 1982
Federal Transfers to Provinces
promise the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Bockstael) and I promise the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) that I will make sure the fact that they did not stand up for the interests of Manitoba in this House at this particular time will be carried to every doorstep in their ridings, bar none-they can count on it-in the next election.


An hon. Member:: Let CUPE do it for you!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: They are already in trouble. Between this matter and VIA Rail, we should be able to get rid of the hon. member for St. Boniface with no problem at all. The hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry will look after himself.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gordon Edward Taylor: The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will hire him.


An hon. Member:: The Senate. Senator Axworthy!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I am quite serious, but I look across at the hon. members, and they are smiling, having a bit of a jape among themselves. If they think this will not have some political impact on their fortunes in Manitoba, then they are kidding themselves. God knows, it could not get much worse, but they still do elect people out there. This will have an effect on the province of Manitoba and that effect will be made known to the voters of Manitoba by the provincial government and by members of both the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party.
There is an argument which has been offered concerning the reason Manitoba should not be complaining too loudly about the way it is treated by this equalization formula. Just for those who might have the misfortune of hearing it, the argument is that payments to Manitoba in the last five-year period were quite generous and that the formula has just worked out differently this time. One gets lucky in one five-year period and the next five-year period one gets unlucky. We really got unlucky this time, but that is another matter.
The reason that the equalization payments to Manitoba appear to be so generous in the last five-year period is that they are viewed in relation to the payments it received in the five-year period before that. One cannot view these equalization payments as a little snap photograph in history somewhere and then say, "Look what you were getting last time." The equalization payments Manitoba received from 1977 to 1982 were higher because it had received a bad deal for 1972 to 1977. It seems that the Liberals go in cycles. Now it seems that we are supposed to get a bad deal again. However, as I tried to point out, this time we are really getting a bad deal. We are getting such a bad deal that one finds the province of Manitoba getting a percentage increase which is approximately half of what the second worst province in the formula receives, or 37.2 per cent as opposed to 66.1 per cent, which is what Quebec will receive over the next five years.
All we are asking in this amendment is that the province of Manitoba be raised up to the level of the second worst province
in the formula. 1 want to repeat Mr. Speaker, why would you have a formula that does this to one particular province? I cannot understand it. It does not make any sense.
When I came down here as a new Member of Parliament, it may be because I come from Manitoba-where we are a kind of combination of political and cultural values, with Ontario and the west and ourselves right smack in the middle-1 did not really have a kind of regional consciousness. I did not come down here to be a spokesman for Manitoba, I came down here to be a member of the Canadian Parliament and to figure out what to do for the whole country.
I must say that over the last few years, sitting here and looking over there, and seeing what can be done to rail service, seeing what can be done to the Crow or what is proposed to be done to the Crow, and the whole attitude of the government, I found myself developing more and more a regional consciousness here in the House. In a way I regret it. I did not come down here to see myself as a member from one region opposed to members from another region. The fact of the matter is that this is what is beginning to happen to me, and I regret it. After these last few weeks, after looking at a formula that treats my home province in this particular way, I cannot say that I am exactly on my way to retreating from that regional consciousness of which I spoke.
I plead with the hon. members, on the government side in particular, not to allow this present equalization formula to go through in the way it is. It would be a tragedy for Manitoba, it would also be a tragedy for our whole view of equalization. It makes a mockery of the very notion of equality between the provinces and the ability of all provinces, no matter which province it may be, to provide public services at reasonably comparable levels.
We had some other amendments to move, Mr. Speaker. I want to mention some. We moved them in committee. If we spend all our time now and we vote on this amendment, so be it, because this is one of the most important amendments in this particular package. I am going to sit down so that others can have a chance to speak.
I want to put on the record that in order to pay more attention to this particular proposal we have forgone our opportunity to debate our amendment dealing with the way in which the federal government is discriminating against the province of Saskatchewan by not forgiving them what the province of Saskatchewan owes them due to census readjustment, when we are forgiving all the other provinces that owe the federal government money.
We have forgone our amendment which tries to get rid of the GNP cap that the Liberals have put on the equalization payments. That is another way of deconstitutionalizing equalization payments, by saying that equalization has its limits and it is going to be tied to the GNP. We have forgone that amendment.
April 1, 1982

There is one other amendment that we have forgone that 1 want to mention. It is one in which we want to build into this fiscal package an opportunity for review before the next fiscal arrangements are negotiated, in the same way as happened in an ad hoc way, as a result of the setting up of the special parliamentary task force on federal-provincial fiscal arrangements. I thought that was a particularly good exercise. I began to have my doubts about it as 1 listened to members of the very task force that I was on and who signed the same paper that I signed. Yet I saw the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) and the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) get up here and I can hardly believe that these are the same people with whom I spent 265 hours in hearings, and that those are the same people who signed the parliamentary task force report. That report made a lot of recommendations, and good recommendations, that this government has completely ignored, including some of the central recommendations, like the revenue guarantee, leaving the money attributable to the compensation in the revenue guarantee. This particular package was taken out; that was a main recommendation, but they ignored it.
Not having lost faith in democracy, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that by the next time we have that kind of review, we might have a different government. Who knows, we might even have a New Democratic government. Wouldn't that be the day! Then we would have a government that would pay attention to those people who come to these hearings and who give their views. We might pay attention to them. So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that we will pass this amendment, redress this injustice to Manitoba and then truly have the kind of equalization formula that we ought to have.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: I would like to take a few minutes of the time this evening, Mr. Speaker, to make the case that the mover and seconder of this motion, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) and the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) have made.
When listening to this discussion and the debate that has gone on so far, I wondered whether someone coming here, listening to the debate for the first time, would wonder whether he was a citizen from another planet or from another part of the world. Someone capable of being a little more objective than many of us are would wonder whether we were talking about two separate sets of taxpayers; one set of taxpayers paying tax to the provincial government and one set of taxpayers paying tax to the federal government. It seems to me that we have lost sight of the fact that the same people whom we are discussing, asking whose ox is going to be gored, happen to be the same taxpayers of the country, whether they pay those taxes to the provincial government or to the federal government and whether they get the services back from the provincial government or from the federal government. It seems to me that we should be concerned about the taxpayers as citizens of the country who are expecting some services back for the taxes that they pay. If we could keep that in mind, we might have a better attitude to what goes on in the House and
Federal Transfers to Provinces
set a better example to those who watch the debate and the proceedings in the House.
It is up to us to set the proper tone, to realize that we should both be aiming at serving the people who pay the taxes and those who are expecting the services back-and in this case we are talking about the equalization payment.
I have two or three other quick points, Mr. Speaker, and 1 am glad to see that the parliamentary secretary is here and paying close attention. I know he has a close relative in Manitoba. It is not that I expect anything in the way of a favourable decision or any judgment that he may have in this matter. I just point out that he has a relative who comes from Manitoba and, having regard to that, I expect he is well aware of the province and some of the problems we have there.
As to the point of whether we should or should not have more from the federal government I think that what concerns us in Manitoba-and this is a non-partisan topic in Manitoba, or at least it should be-is that whatever point has to be made for Manitoba, or whatever cuts there are, we expect they should be equal across the country.
All kinds of figures have been given by the two hon. members who spoke ahead of me. Many people talk about percentages and statistics. The point, to my mind, is that Manitoba, over the next five years, will receive an average increase of about one-third over what we have now, whereas the next lowest increase will be approximately two-thirds. Looking at it on that basis, it is not a small amount, it is a large amount. We will get about half as much, on average, as far as the increase goes over the next five years, as the lowest province next to us. So we are not talking about a few fractions or a few decimal points here and there, we are talking about almost half as much of an increase as the province of Quebec will get, which will be the next province above Manitoba.
When we are dealing with figures like this, it sometimes takes a long time to fully understand them, regardless of whether we want to be critical of the Department of Finance or the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) or whoever is in power, and there is a possibility that something has been overlooked. I do not think we can use that excuse any more after tonight, because the issues have been well aired in committee and it has been well aired in the House of Commons. Up until now, if we wanted to be kind about it, we probably could have given the government the benefit of the doubt and said it was an honest mistake; but we are drawing the attention of the government to it this evening and hereafter I do not think that excuse will hold water any more, so clearly we have to make clear the position it is going to put Manitoba in by this new equalization formula.
It puts us in a particularly bad situation because, as the Manitoba minister of finance said this afternoon, talking about that province, "We are heading to greater deficits at the same time that the federal government is heading toward lower

April 1, 1982
Federal Transfers to Provinces
deficits." There is another problem that we have. At the same time the federal government is attempting to lower its deficit, if Manitoba wants to maintain the services that have been provided in the past, there will be larger deficits for the province of Manitoba. I think all members will find that acceptable. One would expect the federal government to have some sympathy for that position if it believed its projections and, if those projections come about, because the federal government is heading toward a lower deficit.
Another point needs to be made with regard to the equalization formula. Over the past number of years our record in terms of economic growth has stayed relatively constant. As the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill said, there is no reason why over the next five years we should be treated so much worse than the average. It appears there is nothing, in terms of the formula, which would cause us to be treated less well in terms of less equalization payments than we have been in the past.
I really cannot understand why this amendment should not be passed. I do not want to get into the threats made by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill. We do not threaten to campaign against the two Liberal members who have been elected in Manitoba. We want to get the job done for the citizens of Manitoba. If the government would take that kind of attitude, it would see fit to support this amendment. Whether it be in the name of the mover and seconder is immaterial. We are interested in seeing that the citizens of Manitoba are treated equally, relative to other citizens throughout the country.
I wish to close by referring to something said in the throne speech on April 14, 1980, almost two years ago. In the throne speech it was said that Members of Parliament who are not government members have a special duty to represent those areas of the country that are not represented by government members. On the other hand, we have a special duty to represent our part of the country here in the house and to represent Canada in our constituencies. This is an opportunity for the government to put that into practice.
If we are to do a good job in terms of being federal members and standing up for our country, we have to be treated fairly. I throw that admonition back to the government members to ensure that we are not treated unfairly in Manitoba, so that we can be proud to be part of this part of the country and are treated fairly.
I do not want to prolong the debate. I hope that the two Manitoba members who sit on the government side will prevail upon the government to correct what is obviously a very bad situation for Manitoba when you look at the equalization payments in the new formula.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure once again to comment on Bill C-97 following the three previous speakers, especially the last one who reminded me so touchingly of my close family ties in Manitoba. I am not sure whether it is appropriate or not but I would like to take
this occasion to say hello directly to those members of my family who might be watching right now. It is a real pleasure.
Before I go into some of the arguments on the other side, I would like to put on the record again, as was done earlier today, some of the statistics that are involved. This will help the people of Manitoba to cut through the rhetoric that has been thrown out by all parties.
This year $895 million will be going to the people of Manitoba under the equalization and established programs financing. Over the next five years that will grow until 198687, when $1,280 million will be sent out. That gives a grand total of $5,363 million. Included in those figures is a total of $165 million being sent to Manitoba to help that province in the change from one calculating formula to another. That $165 million is broken down as follows: $82 million this year, $56 million next year and $27 million in the third year. It is a diminishing transition payment intended to cushion the blow of moving from one formula to another.
There is a third payment that has not been included in these calculations, that is, $31 million going to Manitoba in the form of forgiveness for some calculations on population size. That $31 million was included in payments made previously. When the new population figures were provided, it was found we had overpaid by that amount. That amount technically is being forgiven. That is an extra $31 million for the province of Manitoba.
This afternoon in committee and now in the House we have heard talk about the formulas and the basis for calculating them as if there were some kind of competition between the provinces. That is misleading. Equalization payments are exactly that; equalization payments make provinces equal to a mathematical standard. The minister clearly explained this when he visited the committee last Monday. 1 would like to pass along a couple of comments which the minister made. He said:
The formula Is intended to bring all provinces up to a standard ... Obviously, at a certain stage, particular provinces get close to that standard, and because of that the yield of equalization decreases and some provinces slip out of the equalization formula because of their improved fiscal capacity.
The minister pointed out a couple of other things, particularly with respect to Manitoba. He said it is still true that even with the transitional payment, calculating the rate of growth percentage-wise year to year in certain years, the rates of growth for Manitoba are less than for the Atlantic provinces or Quebec. He answered by saying:
If an equalization system is to measure fiscal capacity it cannot yield similar results for every province.
In other words, let we remind our friends from the NDP of one of the age-old principles that they like to present to the Canadian people; that is: from each according to his ability; to each according to his need.
We do not give the same amounts to every province. For example, we do not yet give any equalization to Ontario. Bill Davis might put us in the position where we eventually have to make an equalization payment to Ontario, but we are not yet in that position. Should Ontario then come to us and say that
April 1, 1982

it is receiving less equalization on a percentage basis than Manitoba and therefore it should get a special grant to make up for that? It sounds ridiculous. It is equally ridiculous for Manitoba to say that it is receiving less than the Atlantic provinces and therefore it should get some flat payment in forgiveness. That is what is being presented here, a kind of competition among the provinces where they would say: "Because we do not get as much on a percentage basis, we want a special payment." That is what the members are telling the federal government. I am sorry but I cannot agree with that.
Let us review some of the statistics involved. From 1976-77 to 1981-82, Manitoba's equalization entitlement had increased more rapidly than those of any other province. It went up in Manitoba by 156 per cent, and it went up in Nova Scotia by 72 per cent. How did this happen? Why did Manitoba get 156 per cent and Nova Scotia only 72 per cent?
The treasurer of Manitoba answered that question in the committee this morning. He said:
Over the last five years, the Manitoba economy has performed well below the national average, and a number of indicators, such as real growth, job creation and investment show our performance to have been the worst of any province.
Since the performance was bad, equalization payments were greater in order to lift Manitoba's share up to the national standards. Now that Manitoba is closer to that standard, the percentages will not be so high. It is a very simple calculation.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: That is a completely false argument.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: It is not a competition between regions; it is a measurement against a standard.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: You do not even know what you are talking about.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: When you get closer to that standard, you get a lower percentage. It is unfortunate that the members have decided to present it as some kind of competition between regions. I can assure the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) that he is at his best when he is not slipping into the narrow regional interests which he presented earlier. He should keep his sights high and keep himself on course.
What are members asking for, Mr. Speaker? Let us be specific. They are saying that the special SI65 million transition payment is not enough. The federal government has taken some steps to soften the change-over, yet some hon. members are saying that it is not quite enough and would like just a little bit extra-just $300 million extra. They say that $165 million does not quite get us there, but $300 million would get us home.
Members are expressing some other views. They are saying that Manitoba should not only have that extra gift-virtually two times more than what it is receiving-it should also have a special status in order to enjoy that gift so that no other
Federal Transfers to Provinces
province would get it. 1 cannot accept that because it is asking for far too much.
We must recall that it receives less because it is closer to the standard. It is no longer experiencing the hardships described by the treasurer.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Douglas Glenn Fisher: I will answer questions at the end.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: If the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fisher) would answer a question-he made a commitment to answer a question at the end of his remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: That question will be permitted with the consent of the Parliament Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance and the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has had ample opportunity to speak. I think that the hon. member must admit that I have listened with great interest and attention to his comments, which is why I am now in a position to be able to answer some of them.


Miss Jewett:: You started it.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: What is the federal government proposing for Manitoba apart from the $165 million transition payment, the $31 million special population payment-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: That is included in the figures we were using.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: -and a very healthy growth in our support for general programs? We want Manitoba to get out of the conditions which have been forecast to be so terrible by the treasurer. On this side of the House my two colleagues do not look upon the world with the same gloom and doom as the treasurer did today, describing that province's future in such terrible terms. It is my hope that their varying transitional payments are unnecessary, I hope that the special gifts are unnecessary and that their economic health brings them to the point where their equalization payments are similar to those of Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia, and other rich provinces, that is, zero. If we can get Manitoba to the point of zero-


Pauline Jewett: Typical Ontario patronizing.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: -what better gift to give that province than that kind of payment?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understood from the hon. member that he would permit a question at the end of his remarks. Will he permit a question?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, it just shows that the Liberals will clap for anything. My question to the parliamentary

April 1, 1982
Federal Transfers to Provinces
secretary is this: does he realize that this amendment provides that if the economy of Manitoba improves, the equalization payments will go down-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member has participated in this debate once and he can only do so again with the unanimous consent of the House. I gather that there is not unanimous consent.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I asked a question. I did not make a statement. I asked the hon. member whether he realizes that the formula provides that-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I must tell the hon. member that he can only ask a question with unanimous consent, and I gather there is not unanimous consent.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to know what the devil is the matter with my question? I asked whether he realizes the formula provides that if the economy of Manitoba improves, the equalization payments would go down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. There are many ways to present an argument and to seek the floor but certainly not under the guise of a point of order. This is not a point of order. For the hon. member to ask a question, he must have unanimous consent of the House, which he does not have.
The question is on Motion No. 3, standing in the name of the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion would stand deferred, but since there are no further amendments, shall I call in the members?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Call in the members.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I realize I am a long way from the Clerk at the Table, but I did not hear my name called out. Could that be checked please?
April 1, 1982


Mr. Benjamin:: What is your name again?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's name was not called. We will call it now.
The Clerk: Mr. Blackburn.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Which side?


Erik Nielsen: Which way did you vote?
After the taking of the vote:


Madam Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost.
Motion negatived.


Madam Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 2 standing in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie).


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Motion negatived.


Madam Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 3 standing in the name of the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp).


Madam Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost. Motion negatived.


Mr. Chretien (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that the bill be concurred in.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, we were prepared to divide on the report stage of the bill. May I suggest that you call for those in favor and those against.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Madam Speaker:: Shall we dispense with the bells?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
April 1, 1982
Madam Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Some hon. Members:: At the next sitting of the House.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been made.

Mr. D. M. Collenette (York East):: April 1, 1982
Adjournment Debate
annum. The savings would appear to be negligible in comparison with the value of Gibraltar, and the moneys required for commercialization do not, in my submission, appear to be unreasonable, even given the present state of the British economy.
One might wonder why I would raise in the Canadian House of Commons what the Secretary of State for External Affairs described on Monday as a purely internal British matter. With respect, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the minister implicitly answered this question when he stated on page 15897 of Hansard on March 29th, 1982:
-that the fact that the relations between Britain and Spain concerning this question appear to have somewhat improved, and the fact that Spain is now entering the NATO alliance, should help set the stage for more useful discussions.
He then went on to muddy the issue further by saying:
Therefore, although there should not be discussions in NATO itself, the joint membership of both countries in NATO should be a disposing factor toward a settlement.
What the Secretary of State for External Affairs was saying is that the future of Gibraltar, as a strategic component in NATO defence, is of concern to all NATO nations. In view of this admission, it is entirely appropriate for me and other members of this House to encourage the government of Canada to raise this matter with our NATO allies.
I understand that both the U.S. and Dutch governments have expressed their concern to Great Britain that the capability of Gibraltar's naval facilities could be gravely compromised unless time is given for the people of Gibraltar to make the transition from a defence-based economy to a tourist-based economy. At the very least, Mr. Speaker, Canada and our NATO allies should prevail upon the British government to phase out at least its financial commitment to the Gibraltar dockyard over a five or ten-year period so that the transition just described could be achieved. We are talking about a very small place in a sea of English language culture and a sea of other cultures in the Mediterranean.
I think it is incumbent upon members of this House to speak in defence of the people of Gibraltar who have valiantly fought to preserve their culture and linguistic traditions of the past 300 years. It is for this reason, and for the strategic reasons of NATO and Canada's role in NATO, that I bring this matter to the attention of the House this evening.


Mr. Ron Irwin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette) for bringing this very important matter not only to the attention of the House publicly but, also, to the attention of members of the House of Commons and the Government of Canada.
The question is, are we affected as an ally with the closure of the royal naval dockyard in Gibraltar. We are concerned, but we have to caution our concern in these terms. Canada has no mandate to speak for the people of Gibraltar. Gibraltar is a British dependent territory. Therefore, it is essentially a question for Britain's domestic policy.
The history of Britain in Gibraltar goes back 278 years to 1704 during the war of the Spanish succession when Sir George Rooke took possession of Gibraltar. The possession was ratified legally in 1713 by the Treaty of Utrecht. We are not talking about something that is recent, but something that is directly within British jurisdiction for 278 years.
We are encouraged in Canada by the fact that the British government has a white paper entitled "The United Kingdom Defence Program: The Way Forward". In it, the government of the U.K. unequivocally acknowledges its obligation to support the economy of Gibraltar. Let us face it, Mr. Speaker, without the dockyard the economy of Gibraltar would be crippled. Under this paper the U.K. government confirms it is prepared to consider alternate means of investment if there is a dockyard closure. We have every faith that the U.K. government will honour its white paper-because it has historically looked to Gibraltar, and consequently we feel the issue of Gibraltar should not be raised at NATO at this time, whether inside that organization or through bilateral discussions with NATO members.
Having said that, I again want to thank the hon. member for raising this issue in the House. Historically we feel a part of Gibraltar, and it is appropriate that members of this House remind us of that from time to time.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES-UREA FORMALDEHYDE FOAM INSULATION-REQUEST THAT LOANS BE GRANTED TO AFFECTED HOME OWNERS. (B) REFINANCING OF HOMES. (C) USE OF FUNDS ALLOCATED FOR HOME RENOVATION PROGRAM
John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, on March 24, 1982, I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) if the Government of Canada, through CMHC, would give consideration to amending the National Housing Act to permit CMHC to make direct loans to people having trouble renewing mortgages or refinancing their homes due to the presence of urea formaldehyde foam insulation, which, from now on, I will call UFFI.
The subject was first brought up when we were discussing the housing bill in committee with the minister responsible for CMHC. At that time I asked the president of CMHC, if in fact under certain circumstances CMHC made direct loans to home owners. He confirmed that under certain circumstances they do, such as in resource communities where it is difficult to obtain private financing. I suggested to the minister that he consider bringing an amendment to the act to allow CMHC to do this. It would not cost the taxpayer any money, the loans would be at current rates, and it would help people who have a very serious problem.
Unlike the government, I feel it must assume some responsibility with respect to the UFFI problem. After all, a government corporation provided the UFFI to the people who put it in their homes. It gave grants through the CHIP program to those who used it in their homes, so it has to accept some responsibility, and this is one area where I feel it can.
April 1, 1982

I brought up the case of Mr. Jim Rogers of Norval, who happened to work in the insulation business. To set an example, I guess he insulated his own home with UFFI and then did a number of others. I gather from those who have had the insulation installed that he did an excellent job. When the government banned the insulation, he of course lost his franchise, his business, the special equipment he purchased, his truck and so on, and he went bankrupt. During his financial difficulties he lost his family and is now on the verge of losing his home because the people who provided private financing for his home have now purchased their own homes and want their money. At the end of May he will not have a mortgage on his home. He has gone to various lenders and they will not provide financing. He has a unique problem, one that I think the government has a responsibility to do something about. The solution is simple: CMHC can provide direct loans to people who are having trouble financing.
Another example is Mr. Gerald Prevost of Georgetown. He has a second mortgage on his property and, because of this insulation problem, he cannot refinance that privately held second mortgage. It is being called and he is, therefore, also going to have trouble keeping his property.
1 plead with the government to take another look at the matter. The minister responsible for housing brushed it off in committee, said it was not his responsibility. The Prime Minister said they were already doing enough for the people suffering from this particular problem, which is not true.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) is remaining quiet about the whole thing. I plead with him to take another look at it.
In the one minute left remaining to me, I would also like to say that 1 suggested in the same series of questions that if the $30 million designated to create employment and to add to RRAP-the home improvement program-could be ear-' marked to remove the urea formaldehyde foam insulation, or help with a portion of the costs of removing it from homes which would not otherwise qualify under the program which the government has already set up, this would create more jobs than the government has proposed, because it would be so labour-intensive. At the same time, it would help to clear up the very serious problem in this country caused by the use of urea formaldehyde foam insulation.
With those two thoughts, I leave it with the government. I ask it to give serious consideration to those two programs. It will not cost the taxpayer a penny more than permitted now, and it will help with a very serious problem.


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak regarding government assistance to people with homes containing urea formaldehyde foam insulation. I would like to respond to the issues raised by the hon. member for Brampton-
Adjournment Debate
Georgetown (Mr. McDermid). Questions have been asked about Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation making direct loans to people with homes containing UFFI. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has a long established relationship with thousands of private lenders. That relationship has helped to provide billions of dollars to many millions of Canadian home owners. If specific cases of difficulty in financing or refinancing homes occur, the home owner or the Member of Parliament, such as the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown, should inform the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation-


John Horton McDermid: I did! He brushed me off!


Jesse Philip Flis: -the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) and the local office or headquarters of CMHC. They would want to know about any instances of established private lenders refusing to provide mortgages to people with UFFI in their homes. The hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown reported such an instance in the House last week. CMHC wants to receive full details from anyone knowing of such situations. I would urge any home owner who feels he is being discriminated against because of UFFI in his home to immediately take the steps I have suggested.
The hon. member also referred to the Canada home renovation plan which allocates $30 million to help pay the cost of home repairs. He asked about UFFI home owners benefiting from this program. As hon. members of the House know, more than $100 million has already been allocated as part of the government's response to provide direct assistance to UFFI home owners.


John Horton McDermid: Only if there are fumes.


Jesse Philip Flis: I think all hon. members on each side of the House would like to be fully aware of just how much the government is doing to assist the owners of homes with formaldehyde insulation.
One of the first steps taken by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was to establish the information and coordination centre on urea formaldehyde foam insulation. The centre has served as a focus for the government program by providing advice and information to thousands of concerned home owners. The centre has carried out an extensive testing program involving houses from coast to coast.
A new program was announced in December to help people who are experiencing serious problems and to restore confidence in the value of UFFI homes. The government, as the minister mentioned in question period today, is providing free tests on demand to determine whether the formaldehyde is above the acceptable level. This started on March 22, and several thousand more test kits are going out this week. It also provides for technical advice and assistance to home owners, registration of qualified contractors and laboratories and financial assistance to a maximum of $5,000.

April 1, 1982
Adjournment Debate


AIRPORTS-CHARLOTTETOWN AIRPORT EXPANSION
Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pursue in more detail a question 1 directed to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) on March 24 dealing with the expansion of the Charlottetown airport. My question dealt with the delay of the necessary approval of Treasury Board to proceed with construction of the airport.
In order to understand the anxiety we Islanders are feeling, Mr. Speaker, it is necessary to know that this matter goes back to 1974 at which time a federal-provincial planning committee agreed that a new air terminal building and a new cross-winds runway would be constructed on the present location of the Charlottetown airport. Following this, agreements were reached with the federal, the provincial and the municipal governments on a number of items, these being an environmental plan, public participation, zoning regulations, water and sewer hookup, diversion road construction, airport access interchange, and the airport terminal building.
The original terminal design was done in 1977; it featured a unique open design, a large tourist promotion area, rampside visibility, a children's play area, extensive landscaping, a VIP lounge and energy conservation features. The cost, in 1977 dollars, was $5,861,500.
On November 3, 1977, Treasury Board announced that tenders would be called for construction of the first phase, early in 1978, and it approved $21,531,500, subject to the following conditions: (a) The terminal building design be reviewed with a view to reducing its size and cost because of revised passenger forecasts; (b) annual reports be submitted to update the total cost, taking inflation into account; and (c) there be no increases in project scope. This resulted in a complete review of the passenger forecast figures which had been done in 1973-74 and upon which the size of the airport terminal was established.
In the early summer of 1978, three alternatives were put before the then minister of transport, the Hon. Otto Lang. They were: (a) proceed to Treasury Board with the original concept; (b) reduce the cost of the original concept; or (c)- and this is the one the minister chose-amend the original project by using a "Step" air terminal building modular design with a separate control tower.
During the summer of 1981, Mr. Speaker, discussions took place between officials of Transport Canada and the province of Prince Edward Island. The provincial officials were successful in pointing out the problems with congestion and the safety hazards connected with parking at the present terminal building. Transport Canada, with the assistance of the department of highways and public works, increased the present terminal building and included a new baggage-handling system. Transport Canada has assured the province that these minimal improvements are only temporary and it is hoped that the new air terminal building will be started in the summer of 1982.
The minister and I have had a fair amount of communication regarding this matter over the past few years, Mr. Speaker, and I am confident that he would like to see this issue settled almost as much as I would.
On February 11, I questioned the minister further on the delay and he promised to send me a letter giving me the agenda for coming developments. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the minister's exact words were: "The Charlottetown airport is on my mind all the time, with the Crow, at the moment; but I have not really been able to memorize the work agenda for each of Canada's one thousands airports, so I beg permission to send my friend a detailed analysis of every step in the coming hours."
Following question period, the minister and I did have a chance to talk but he did not give me a date as to when this matter is going to Treasury Board, although he did provide me with other related information.
On March 24, I asked the minister when the submission was going to Treasury Board. He replied that when I asked him the same question the other day he gave me a full report with a timetable and agenda and so on. He also indicated that if the submission did not go to Treasury Board exactly on the hour that he indicated, he would find out and report back as precisely as he did the last time. You have to give the minister points for being consistent. He has consistently told me he would provide me with an answer and he has consistently failed to do so.
While we are optmistic that now that the ball has started to roll it will continue to do so, but we are also painfully aware that, unless that ball picks up a lot of speed, the construction industry in P.E.I. will be facing an extremely bleak future. We appreciate the minister's support, but again we know that this redevelopment project also had the approval of the Hon. Otto Lang.
Mr. Speaker, those of us who make our home in Prince Edward Island, and who have been watching the so-called progress of the Charlottetown airport development over the years, know one thing for sure. We know that on November 3, 1977, Transport Canada received approval from Treasury Board for the redevelopment of the Charlottetown airport at a cost of $21,531,500. The present estimated cost of the project, including control tower and operations building, has now risen to $30,963,750. This is a disgraceful situation and should be rectified without further delay. Treasury Board must approve this project immediately so that we can get on with the job and provide a much needed facility, and also some relief to the construction industry of Prince Edward Island.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, further to the information provided to the hon. member by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) on February 11, 1982,1 am pleased to be given the opportunity to outline in detail the progress of the Charlottetown airport expansion. The purpose of this over-all upgrading of facilities is to ensure that the airport will be able to accommodate forecast growth in aircraft and passenger traffic in the coming years.
April 1, 1982

Redevelopment of the Charlottetown airport has evolved from a master planning study and has been conducted in cooperation with a joint federal-provincial planning committee, as indicated by the hon. member. It is expected that the final cost of the entire project will be in the $30 million range. Thus far, a combined services building has been erected at a cost of $2.2 million, and an aircraft parking apron and connecting taxi ways have been completed at a cost of $1.7 million. The hon. member will be pleased to know that the land acquisition program is proceeding well. Total cost of the program to date is close to $2 million. A sum of $770,000 is programmed for the design of a control tower-operations building during the current fiscal year, with tender calls scheduled for the spring of 1982.
Since the air carriers agreed to the most recent proposed layout for a new air terminal building, a Treasury Board submission has been prepared which seeks funding authority to hire consultants for design work and the preparation of cost estimates. The submission is now being considered by Treasury
Adjournment Debate
Board. 1 might add, for the information of the hon. member, that consideration of space for Canadian inspection services, including customs and immigration, is included in this submission.
! i
Although the minister had hoped that the program documentation would be reviewed as originally anticipated, the construction schedule has not been jeopardized. Given a favourable decision from the board, Transport Canada still proposes that construction begin during the spring of 1983. I am certain that this information will be well received by the constituents of Malpeque.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 11.09 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, April 2, 1982