1982-04-05

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, whereas in today's The Globe and Mail it was reported that the International Development and Research Centre has developed a revolutionary new building material consisting of mud with additions of asphalt and boiled banana stems, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That in light of Liberal high mortgage rates, mounting local taxes and the ill-fated November budget, the minister responsible for CMHC personally check out the new system's applicability to Canadian conditions by living in a mud hut for the next six months.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, the Argentinian invasion of the Falkland Islands is a blatant breach of international law and a violation of the fundamental principles of the United Nations. The United Kingdom has exercised sovereignty over the Falkland Islands since 1833. Its inhabitants are British citizens and have no wish to be subjected to the dictates of an alien military junta. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon):
That this House condemns the military aggression of Argentina and urges the Government of Canada to impose economic sanctions against Argentina until such time as that country withdraws its forces from the Falkland Islands, as instructed to do so by the United Nations Security Council.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SEARCH AND RESCUE
Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The Department of Transport has now admitted it does maintain a Sikorski 61 helicopter at Prince Rupert in British Columbia and does admit that the crew has received no training whatsoever in search and rescue procedures. The department has also admitted that it does maintain a Bell nine-passenger helicopter at Victoria and its crew has not received search and rescue training either. The department claims it is not its primary duty, but every sailor knows that it is everyone's duty to help in a marine disaster, and to be skilled in so doing. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That this House instruct and order the Department of Transport to arrange immediately for full search and rescue training for department personnel involved, and that additional equipment useful in search and rescue be made available to these helicopter personnel to avoid possible loss of life on the west coast.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I would like to preface the motion I am rising to move under the provisions of Standing Order 43 by saying that it also concerns the important subject of the invasion of the Falkland Islands, but that it is different from the one which was moved just a moment ago. I hope it is one which will receive the approval of all sides of the House.

April 5, 1982
Last week over 4,000 Argentinian troops invaded the Falkland Islands in a move which the United Nations Security Council has overwhelmingly opposed. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House condemns the invasion of the Falkland Islands and urges the immediate withdrawal of Argentinian troops.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


John Edward Broadbent: A Tory said No!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, my motion deals with the lack of clarity of the Prime Minister in his public utterances. Last Friday the Prime Minister, according to the transcript of his press conference, stated that he had not heard what the expelled Soviet trade official had done was illegal, but that he was attempting to circumvent "one of our policies." Many Canadians are trying to do that, particularly with respect to the budget and metric conversion. However, he also noted, in response to Mr. Lubor Zink's question pertaining to simultaneous sanctions and friendship with the Soviet Union, that we do not have any friendship protocol with the Soviet Union and that the word "friendship" did not exist in any treaty or accord or agreement with the U.S.S.R. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That the Prime Minister explain on motions exactly why Mr. Abramov was expelled if he was not doing anything illegal and how it is that the word "friendship" does in fact appear in the opening preamble of the Canadian/Soviet protocol in this context: "Inspired by a desire to develop and strengthen relations of friendship, good neighbourliness and mutual confidence between the two countries".


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FITNESS AND AMATEUR SPORT
Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The sport of curling is one of Canada's most popular winter activities. Yesterday in Garmisch, West Germany, the Canadian men's curling rink, comprised of Skip, A1 Hackner, Rick Lang, Bob Nicol and Bruce Kennedy, from the Fort William Curling Club in Thunder Bay, won the Air Canada Silver Broom, the symbol of world supremacy in curling. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner):
That this House does recognize and commend the magnificent efforts of these Canadian sportsmen who have brought great honour to Canada.


Madam Speaker:: I have said before that I cannot accept congratulatory motions because this is not, of course, the purpose of Standing Order 43. But if the House wishes to applaud this accomplishment, it is free to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Madam Speaker, Canadians are moved with admiration, noting the respect shown to the time-honoured British tradition of ministerial responsibility which prompted the resignation of Lord Carrington, Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom government. I therefore move, seconded by the member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That this House demand that the Government of Canada return to this honourable tradition, so regrettably neglected by the arrogance demonstrated opposite, by requiring the resignations of the Minister of Finance for his high interest rates and for failure to honour his promise "Vote Liberal and the price of gasoline will stay down": of the Minister of Employment and Immigration for his failures demonstrated in more than one million unemployed; of the Prime Minister and the Solicitor General for their failure to protect the security service from unfair trial.
These resignations, and many more, will signal to Canadians and the world that responsible government has been returned to Canada.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?
April 5, 1982


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the proposed scheme that would allow the taxation of fishermen's income at source would seriously hamper the ability of fishermen to make a living and would undermine the economies of Canadian fishing communities, and whereas this scheme was imposed unilaterally and greeted with dismay by fishing organizations on both of Canada's coasts, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy):
That the ministers of revenue and finance be instructed to meet fishermen's groups and fishing community representatives, so that they can at last hear the problems that mandatory income tax at source will create; and that in the meantime this scheme be withdrawn along with the rest of the budget that was equally so poorly considered.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Madam Speaker, my colleagues and I wish to voice the warmest words of welcome and best wishes to Her Majesty the Queen and Prince Philip on the occasion of their upcoming visit to Canada. Our constitutional monarchy symbolizes the epitome of democracy. The Queen is not the representative of the majority of the people but the people themselves.
I suppose an integral movement in any well executed pirouette would be an about-face. The Prime Minister has demonstrated in regard to the Queen that he is fast on his feet but slow in his reaction time to policies and principles-above all, principles. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King):
That this House affirm its recognition of the rich legacy bequeathed to us by the British parliamentary system of government, our preference for a constitutional monarchy along with the checks and balances which guarantee the primacy of the individual, his or her rights, privileges and basic freedoms, and that this House enhance this legacy building on-not chipping away at-the symbols and institutions, traditions and customs which have led us along the road to full nationhood.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EDUCATION
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas taxation at all levels should be on an equitable basis, and at the present time parents who support independent schools are required to pay the regular taxes to the public or separate school system, even though the curriculum in an independent school is approved by the department of education, and then pay the total cost of the independent school, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga) and the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That this House urge the Minister of Finance to amend the Income Tax Act granting at least exemption for income tax purposes, of the tuition fees for the independent school, if not for the total amount contributed to the independent school.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask the unanimous consent of the House to deal with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the minister responsible for mines and the status of women has issued a press release congratulating herself on the improvement of the position of women in the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Resources in the last year, and in view of the fact that this release showed that only three people of the 47 people hired in the senior administrative positions were women and that 60 per cent of the women hired were still in the support category, I move, seconded by the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish):
That this House express its disappointment that the mines minister is so easily satisfied with such a minimal improvement of the position of women in her

April 5, 1982
Oral Questions
department and recommends that she step aside and be replaced by someone willing to take tougher stands in her own department.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister, it relates to the events in the Falkland Islands. Will the Prime Minister report to the House on any specifications which Canada has taken to ensure that the Argentinian occupying forces will be removed immediately from the Falkland Islands?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be able to answer that question in detail. I have been discussing this matter with him and with the deputy minister. There will be a meeting of cabinet ministers this afternoon for further discussion on external problems. I will defer to the foreign minister to give the details of the measures we have taken.


Hon. Mark MacCuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, following the resolution adopted by the United Nations Security Council, we called in the Argentinian Charge d'affaires and informed him that all Argentinian forces should be immediately withdrawn from the Falkland Islands and other British possessions which they occupy. In view of the serious situation which has developed, we have recalled our ambassador from Buenos Aires for urgent consultation. We are placing an immediate embargo on all military shipments to Argentina, and we are cancelling the proposed visit of the National Defence College to Argentina.
This afternoon my colleagues and I will be giving consideration to further measures which the government might take. I might mention that since there are some nine Canadian citizens involved who are residents of the Falkland Islands, we have asked the Argentinian authorities to ensure the safety of Canadian nationals on the Falkland Islands. The only other comment I might make is that I had a meeting with Lord Moran this morning to consult on the situation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


IMPORT COMPENSATION PROGRAM-REASONS FOR MINISTER'S APPEAL TO REFINERS
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The minister has known for at least six months that there is a serious problem with the manner in which the import compensation program is working. Common sense would dictate that the program should ensure maximum utilization of domestic crude oil, with the remaining requirements being made up with the cheapest possible offshore supplies. In this way, maximum benefit would accrue to governments in the form of taxes, industry in the form of cash flows, and consumers in the form of cheaper gasoline and heating oil. Instead of correcting this program, last Thursday the minister announced that he is asking eastern Canadian refiners to refrain from buying cheap offshore oil. Will the minister please explain to the House how this will benefit Canadian consumers which, after all, is the original reason behind the import compensation program?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I would very simply explain to the hon. member that one should not ask companies to walk away from valid contracts which have been entered into. I asked the companies to act in whatever way they can without breaking contracts and endangering future medium and longterm security of supply for Canada.
As the hon. member well knows, part of that problem arose from the fact that the government of Alberta arbitrarily cut back production last year by 120,000 barrels a day. Some refiners had to enter contracts with foreign countries to make up for that loss. They have to honour those contracts until they expire. I have indicated to the refiners that once their contracts expire they should renegotiate those contracts bearing in mind the availability of Canadian crude and also ensuring medium and long-term supply for Canadians.
As far as the immediate steps which they can take are concerned, I have said that "when there is Canadian crude available", as there is, "do not go for spot market purchases at the expense of Canadian crude. If you are buying it on the spot market, buy it at the expense of your other foreign suppliers."


Harvie Andre: The minister knows that these long-term contracts were entered into at the instigation of the federal government and were resisted by the industry.


USE OF GOVERNMENT REGULATORY AUTHORITY
Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, when the Mexican crude contracted for by Petro-Canada first became available, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources used his regulatory authority to force refiners to use this oil in spite of the reluctance of refiners to do so because of its poor quality. Having demonstrated the government's willingness to protect Petro-Canada's and Mexico's interest,
April 5, 1982

why is the government now reluctant to use its regulatory authority to protect the interests of domestic producers and also, incidentally, the interests of consumers who would be paying less for their gasoline and heating oil if they were using Canadian crude rather than the high cost imported crude which the companies were forced to contract for, by the government?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is not telling the truth when he says that the government has forced the refiners to enter into long-term contracts. The contracts entered into by the companies have been made on their own as commercial business decisions.
As far as the supply from the Government of Mexico is concerned, my hon. friend will recall that the Government of Canada entered into that contract with Mexico at a time when there were shortages in the world and everyone was scrambling for supplies. We succeeded in getting 50,000 barrels a day and we intend to honour that contract. With respect to policy steps which were announced last week, I must remind the hon. member that the Canadian Petroleum Association has come out in support of the steps we have taken.


INCREASED PRICE OF HOME HEATING FUEL
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. As a result of government policies which were just referred to, people on low and fixed incomes, the working poor and unemployed, have to pay an average of $35 a month more for home heating fuel this winter than they did a year ago. That is $175 over these past five winter months. They have to spend $175 more on home heating fuel and $175 less for food, shelter and clothing. Would the minister explain to these people who have had to fork out $175 from their very limited budget, how the price for their home heating fuel has to go up each month in this country while that of their neighbours in the United States is going down?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I am surprised that the hon. member would ask that question because it is obvious that we have negotiated an energy agreement with the producing provinces that requires step by step increases in the price of energy. On the other hand, because the United States did not follow a policy of moderating price increases for lower-income people, it allowed prices to rise to the world level immediately. That is the reason for the difference.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: They are better off.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The consolation 1 have for the suddenly discovered friends of the hon. member is that if she had been a member of the government a much more expensive burden would have been laid on the consumers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I remember the minister making such fun of the Conservative proposal during the election when he promised that any price the Liberal government brought in would remain at a 14-cent increase. Where is that 14-cent increase now for these people on low and fixed incomes when they are paying 50 cents, 60 cents, and 70 cents more for a gallon of gasoline? He has no explanation for them.


REQUEST FOR REDUCTION IN TAXATION
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, if world oil prices continue to fall, or even remain stable at the current rate, will the minister introduce some measure that will ease the burden on people who are on low and fixed incomes either by reducing taxes on home heating fuels-that would be one measure he could consider-or by providing them with an energy tax credit? Will he be concerned enough about the people who are hurting because of these taxes he has imposed, to try to do something to help them out?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member really must know that the increases in the price of energy which are taking place are the result of an agreement we worked out with Alberta and the other producing provinces, and we have resisted further increases as much as we could. We got the best deal we possibly could from the producing provinces. We settled only when members of the opposition were insisting on a settlement and when even the hon. member for St. John's West was urging the Premier of Alberta not to settle until he got a better deal. I did not see the hon. member get up at that time and say she stood with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources when he was attempting to get a better deal for the consumers of Canada.


HOUSING
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for housing. As the minister knows, because of government inaction current mortgage rates remain at the unconscionable level of 19 per cent. He also knows that the banks' most recent gimmicky scheme for dealing with this housing crisis was the introduction of the variable rate mortgage. Is the minister aware that the legal foundation for this scheme is very shaky? Indeed, it may well be illegal. Specifically, has the minister asked his own departmental lawyers to look at this, or has he asked officials from the Department of Justice to consider it, and could he give us a report on that?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I will preface my response by saying that high

April 5, 1982
Oral Questions
interest rates were a concern of the government, and the government was concerned about people faced with the problem of renewing at high interest rates. Because of those concerns the government introduced the Canada mortgage renewal plan which was part and parcel of Bill C-89. It is unfortunate that that plan, which would have provided a 4 per cent to 5 per cent interest reduction, was not supported by the hon. member for Oshawa or by his party. That relief alone will provide assistance to 50,000 families across Canada. The government has moved to respond to the problems of people who are in the most difficult circumstances, and they will be assisted by that initiative of the government.
In terms of the legal position of the legislation dealing with interest rates, I suppose that question would more properly be put to the Minister of Justice.


LEGALITY OF SCHEME
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, this is an extremely serious matter because this month the banks are starting to offer variable rate mortgages to Canadian families who are looking for some security in terms of home ownership. If I understood the minister correctly, he has just told the House that he has publicly supported a scheme which he himself does not have confidence is legally valid because he has not checked into it.
I would like to put the problem to him and ask him to answer or at least ask his colleague, the Minister of Justice, to deal with it. Since the Interest Act stipulates that the rate of interest chargeable on a loan must be clearly stipulated on the loan document, and since by definition the variable rate mortgage does not do this, does the minister not agree, as some lawyers I have consulted do, that a person getting a mortgage under these terms may well end up with an illegal document and may well have no security of ownership whatsoever in terms of the mortgage?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, if the motive behind the question of the hon. member for Oshawa is his concern that Canadians who take advantage of such a mortgage may not have a legal basis for it, and if he is concerned that these people will not find any relief, I find that somewhat strange, in view of the fact that in his absence his party voted against that legislation which is designed to bring relief and designed to support those types of mortgages.


MINISTER'S ENDORSATION
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the minister's answers become more disturbing all the time. I remind him that 650,000 families have mortgages coming up for renewal this year, not to mention the ones who may be in positions to buy homes for the first time. Since the minister has endorsed this program, is he telling the House that he has endorsed a program the legality of which is seriously in question? If so, he should resign from his responsibilities.


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I admit that I too find the line of questioning of the hon. member for Oshawa somewhat strange, in view of the facts that there are some 30,000 units of modest rental accommodation provided for in the same legislation voted against by his party, and that there are some 70,000 jobs available to Canadians, voted against by the hon. member's party. Today he is leading a line of questioning dealing with interest rates and legalities. What about people who want jobs? What about people who want affordable rental accommodations?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FINANCE
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Last week, during the minister's absence, the Prime Minister cast some real uncertainty on the legislative process arising out of the 1981 budget. I hope the minister will be able to clarify this today, because many Canadians are filing their 1981 tax returns and actually paying tax based on the budget. Quite specifically, will the minister be releasing draft income tax legislation for public discussion prior to the final legislation being put before the House? If so, when will it be released? How long does the minister expect the discussion process to take and, finally, when will the final income tax legislation be presented to the House of Commons for legislative action?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I read the Prime Minister's answers which were given in my absence and I found them very clear; they could not be improved upon.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Jarvis:: That is what you said about the budget, Allan.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As I indicated some days ago in the House, it was my intention to produce draft legislation in the form of comprehensive Ways and Means motions which would be available to tax practitioners and others for comment before the final legislation would be introduced in the House. This practice has been followed on previous occasions by ministers of finance. It is not a new practice, and it is one which has been much appreciated and welcomed by those who wish to have an opportunity to make technical comments on tax matters prior to final legislation being introduced.


REQUEST FOR DEFERRAL OF IMPLEMENTATION DATE
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, the minister observed that this is a practice which has been followed many times in the past. He is practising on Canadian people here, because it is the second Ways and Means motion which will be brought forward. We still have not seen a Ways
April 5, 1982

and Means motion for the December 18 changes. We need facts upon which people can base their decisions. I ask the minister when they will come out. It probably means that we will not see the Ways and Means motion in time for the legislation to be put before the House or until about nine or ten months after the original budget was brought forth. In order to protect Canadians from the uncertainty of this delay, would the minister explain why he will not defer the implementation date or the effective date of the various pieces of legislation until after the legislation is actually passed and approved by the House?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I should make one clarifying comment. The hon. member referred to the fact that no Ways and Means motions were tabled in connection with the changes on December 18. I ask him whether he is aware that it would be quite unnecessary on that occasion to table Ways and Means motions because all the measures were of a relieving nature and, therefore, Ways and Means motions were quite unnecessary.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: But people are paying specific taxes on those.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am sure the hon. member should have been advised of that. But he asked me about uncertainty. I do not find any uncertainty except when I listen to the questions of hon. members opposite. Every day they are attempting to create uncertainty, which is quite unjustified. The Ways and Means motions indicate the tax measures, the effective dates, and their implementation is based upon a practice which has been followed in Canada since the beginning of our country and followed, by the way, in ten provincial legislatures. It is the hon. member who is attempting to create a new custom in the country.


INQUIRY RESPECTING DRAFT MOTIONS AND BILLS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, on March 30 I specifically asked the Minister of Finance whether he was considering publishing draft budget legislation before introducing budget bills relating to any aspect of the budget. He has just indicated that he is proposing draft Ways and Means motions. He knows there is a difference between budget bills and Ways and Means motions. Last week he said that he was publishing draft bills; today he said that he is publishing only draft Ways and Means motions. When was he speaking the truth? What is the government doing? Will the government be introducing just draft Ways and Means motions, as he said today, or will it also be introducing draft budget bills before the real budget bills are introduced in the House?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the practice is to introduce comprehensive Ways and Means motions-
Oral Questions


William Herbert Jarvis: With the budget.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: That has already been done.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -as a detailed expression prior to bringing in tax bills. In a sense the Leader of the Opposition will understand that under the rules of the House a comprehensive Ways and Means motion, in detail, constitutes the precursor of the budget bills, because Your Honour would rule any budget bill out of order-


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Bafflegab.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -if it were not precisely patterned upon the Ways and Means motion. The Leader of the Opposition is really talking about the same thing but using different words.


PUBLICATION OF DRAFT MEASURES
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I congratulate the minister on his bafflegab. Is it the minister's present intention to publish a draft of every budget measure on everything in the budget, before he introduces any Ways and Means motions or any budget bill in the House?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows that Ways and Means motions have already been tabled. Normally the next step would be to table tax bills as part of the legislative process. But in order to accommodate tax practitioners, ministers of finance recently have been in the custom of giving an opportunity, before the bills themselves come in, for others to make comment.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Who are the others?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Citizens and tax practitioners. This is what the former minister of finance, the hon. member for St. John's West, had in mind when he stated in his budget speech of December 1979-


Michael Holcombe Wilson: But who did it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -that in future prior to tabling tax bills he would make available to the public a draft of the legislation so as to enable tax practitioners to make technical suggestions for improvement. I should like the Leader of the Opposition to have a chat occasionally with his former minister of finance.


Mr. Chretien:: He is never here.


INQUIRY RESPECTING POSSIBLE INTRODUCTION OF WHITE PAPER
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the minister has now admitted that he is intending to change the November budget into a white paper which will be introduced in April, May, or some other unspecified date. It is clear the budget is gone; he is going to be bringing in a white paper and planning his new budget, or whatever he calls it, on the basis of discussions on that white paper.

April 5, 1982
Oral Questions
My question is very simple: will this new white paper he is introducing in place of the budget be made available before any Ways and Means motions or any budget bills flowing from the abandoned budget are introduced to the House of Commons? Does he intend to introduce a comprehensive white paper touching every element of the late unlamented November budget, and other matters, before he introduces Ways and Means motions or budget bills?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is obviously in heavy weather-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -in attempting to understand this rather complex business.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: You are floundering, Allan.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: He has asked for the Ways and Means motions relating to the November budget. May 1 repeat for his benefit that these Ways and Means motions have already been tabled according to tradition, and there will be no replacement of those Ways and Means motions.


An hon. Member:: They will just stay there and die.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In accordance with the proposal made by a minister in his government, there will be draft legislation so as to aid tax practitioners and others, and that draft is usually made available in the form of a comprehensive Ways and Means motion. That is the situation, Madam Speaker, and if he wants-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: You have got to be kidding.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -examples of other occasions when this was done, it happened in 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1978-79, and 1980.1 ask him to look at the record.


PUBLICATION DATE
Charles Joseph Clark: A very brief question, Madam Speaker. When will this white paper be published?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Never, Madam Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


HOUSING
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice who, no doubt, listened to the series of questions asked by my leader of the minister responsible for housing. I would like to know whether
the Minister of Justice has been asked to provide a legal opinion on the legality of variable rate mortgages currently being offered by the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and, as I understand it, to be introduced by the end of this month by other banks in Canada, given that the Interest Act of Canada expressly prohibits mortgages which do not show clearly on their face the rate of interest to be charged.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I am not in a position to give a legal opinion on a contract between a private citizen and a bank. If there is some problem with the legislation, I will advise the minister responsible, but I think in this case there is no specific problem which has been brought to my attention.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER OBTAIN LEGAL OPINION
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is to the minister responsible for housing. The Minister of Justice indicated he is in no position to give a legal opinion, which I assume means he has not already given one. Therefore, I ask the minister whether, prior to his endorsing, as he has done, the variable rate mortgage currently available, he has obtained a legal opinion on whether or not those mortgages are in conformity with the Interest Act of Canada? If he did, would he table it in the House? If he did not, would he get that opinion before tens of thousands of Canadians are placed in jeopardy as a result of this system being offered?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, that question is in essence a repetition of the question asked by the hon. member's leader, and my earlier answer stands.


INQUIRY WHETHER REPRESENTATIONS WILL BE MADE TO QUEBEC TO REDUCE IMPACT OF GASOLINE RETAILERS' STRIKE
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Madam
Speaker, my question is directed to either the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The gas retailers' strike in Quebec, which seems to be spreading, is causing major disruptions in both passenger and freight traffic to and from the maritimes.
Can one of the ministers inform us whether he has made or intends to make representations to the Quebec authorities, urging them to take steps to lessen the strike's impact on the free movement of goods and individuals in this country?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am sure that the present
April 5, 1982

situation in Quebec has aroused the concern not only of maritimers who get their supplies from Quebec but also of all Quebec citizens. I think the best way for the Quebec government to bring the situation back to normal and also be fair to gas retailers would be to reduce the excessively high tax introduced by Mr. Parizeau not long ago-Quebec citizens pay 7 cents a litre more for gas in Quebec than in New Brunswick or Ontario. As long as the situation continues, I am afraid there will be some extremely difficult times ahead for distributors and consumers in Quebec.


FINANCE
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Revenue Canada has issued a bulletin in which it instructs Canadians to file their 1981 tax returns as though the November budget were in fact law, yet regional tax offices right across the country are stockpiling tax returns affected by the budget or by the transitional changes announced December 18 by the minister.
Because the continuing confusion surrounding the budget is holding up tax refunds urgently needed by Canadians during the current recession, will the government instruct its officials to process without delay all 1981 tax returns affected by the November budget and pay refunds due, or, for Canadians who have not yet filed their returns, will the government at least absolve those taxpayers affected by the budget from late filing penalties, since their tax returns are just going to be gathering dust anyway?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, these are matters for decision by the Minister of National Revenue-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: You put them in that mess.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and I would be glad to take the question as notice for the minister.


DELAY IN PAYMENT OF REFUNDS
Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, perhaps the Minister of National Revenue should have prepared this budget which is causing all the confusion.
The minister should realize that many Canadians have already filed their tax returns in good faith and in accordance with the government's instructions. They now find their refunds being held up while the Minister of Finance, not the Minister of National Revenue, tries to get his act together on the budget. Does the minister realize that for many people those funds are urgently needed in a time of deepening recession, and how can he and his government justify making
Oral Questions
Candians wait for refunds because of confusion caused by the government itself?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, there is no delay attributable to any confusion arising from the Ways and Means motions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport, with regard to the jobs that went to Japan instead of Canada with respect to the Ridley terminal in British Columbia. The minister gave me the reasoning behind this action in a memo from the National Harbours Board. He now has a reply from Canadian manufacturers, Stephens-Adamson in Belleville, and 1 assume he will be tabling both of them later.
The minister now knows that the reasoning he and 1 were given is full of innuendo, half-truths and outright lies, and that his answers to the Leader of the Opposition and myself with regard to technology and timing were incorrect. Will he now call the meeting which has been requested three times, and promised once, in order to turn the situation around, and will he correct the false impressions given with regard to Stephens-Adamson?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, this is a rather difficult issue. After receiving Stephens-Adamson's comments, I submitted them to the National Harbours Board and they are going to provide me with their reaction in a very few days time. I suggest to my hon. friend that both of us are responsible, both of us have the interests of Canada in mind. I suggest that he should wait for the reaction and then he and I will talk together and decide what we will do from there.


PROVISION OF JOBS FOR CANADIANS
John Raymond Ellis: I have a brief supplementary question, Madam Speaker. Approximately
400,000	man days of work were purposely sent to Japan instead of being used in Canada. Neither the Minister of Transport nor his colleagues have attempted to keep them in Canada. We have received four different memos. They have taken three months. Surely we must not wait much longer to try to turn this matter around. Will the minister tell us exactly what he will do when he gets the next memo to provide jobs for Canadians?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I will speak bluntly now. Last year Canada imported

April 5, 1982
Oral Questions
more than 200,000 motor vehicles from Japan at a cost of $ 1.5 billion. I want to compare that with the present circumstances, however regrettable, involving a $20 million purchase, half of which will be produced in Canada. Therefore I realize that it is a very important matter for hon. members.
As I said in my first answer, as soon as I get the commentary of the National Harbours Board on that subject, we will get together and decide how to proceed. We will consider whether we will table it or whether we will ask someone else to give an opinion. We will decide that in due course.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. According to Data Resources of Canada, the federal government could lose between $22 billion and $30 billion from expected oil and gas revenues over the 1982 to 1986 life of the federal-provincial energy agreements because of the world soft crude oil market. The government has committed itself to pay $6.5 billion in PIP grants to the oil companies over this period. I think legislation will come in today or later this week. In view of these declining oil and gas revenues, where will the money come from to pay for these rich grants to the companies?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, if those forecasts are complete, I suspect that even the Economic Council of Canada will have to revise some of the reports that it published last year. I am very eager to hear what the Economic Council of Canada will have to say about this matter.
However, as far as the question raised by the hon. member is concerned, it is obvious that if the price of oil rises less rapidly, or even declines over the next four years, it is likely that less money will go to the governments and to the companies and, as a result, we may end up in a situation where less exploration is required. Some more expensive projects might be delayed. Therefore, relatively fewer grants would be paid to support such exploration.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: As the minister knows, the problem is that those grants will be in legislation. One can apply for them, they are open-ended, and the minister may have a problem.


SOURCE OF FUNDING GRANTS
Ian Gardiner Waddell: I would like to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. According to the same study, not only would the oil and gas revenues be down, but corporate income taxes of the energy firms would also be down. The study said, "This suggests that the government may need to alter its long-term budgetary strategy".
One minute ago the minister said that he wanted to help Canadian consumers. If he does want to help the Canadian consumer, why does he propose to give $6.5 billion in grants to the oil companies? Who will pay for that money? Where will he get the money? Will he get it from the Canadian consumer, through increased energy taxes, or is he intending to go to the ordinary person and increase personal income taxes? Where will he get the money for those rich grants?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the revenue and expenditure forecasts for the current year have been laid out in the budgetary papers.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It is totally out of date, and you know it!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It would be the occasion in the fall, when we are providing the fiscal framework for the succeeding year, to review all these questions. It is obvious that in this current situation there will be-


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Come clean.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -declining revenue and increasing expenditures because of the recession and the factors to which my hon. friend has alluded. However, no decision has been taken as to new taxes or a change of taxes in order to meet his projections as to the future. All I can say is that the projections, including those of the Economic Council of Canada, have proven to be quite erroneous.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Yours, too.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It has not been so long since the Economic Council of Canada provided a correction, changing its forecast of the Canadian deficit by $4.5 billion.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion who promised to bring a new dimension to regional development. Can the minister report to the House on whether he has decided to do something innovative to alleviate the situation at Trenton, Nova Scotia, where over 1,000 men are out of work and where there is a critical need developing for some quick action to produce rail cars which will be required very shortly, in any event, to help the country's economy develop?
The transportation spokesman for the NDP has made representations. I have, also. A delegation from Trenton met with the Deputy Prime Minister this morning. I am wondering whether the hon. gentleman can give us some hope and show us some imagination in bringing this new dimension to economic development that he promised he would do when he took over his responsibilities?
April 5, 1982


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, I have been consulting with the Minister of Transport on an early answer, an early decision with regard to an order for hopper cars which will involve the Trenton works.
I look forward to my discussions this afternoon, right after question period, with a delegation from the Pictou County Development Commission. 1 hope that the views of the delegation will be of assistance to me in bringing about some useful initiatives for the Trenton works and their employees.


POSSIBLE INTERIM AID
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I am sure the minister will be interested in what the delegation has to say. I want to ask him whether he will, in fact, bring this extra dimension that he spoke about into his department by considering bridge financing or interim aid so that these cars which are needed, not only by Hawker Siddeley, but by other work forces, could be produced now. Money should be given to help produce these cars now rather than simply to pay out unemployment insurance benefits.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, that type of idea is something I would be happy to examine with the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Transport.


FINANCE
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. As the Minister of Finance knows, at the present time the federal government is involved in a massive tax grab at the expense of the farmers of Canada, due to the imposition of some very harsh and discriminatory taxes on farm fuel and natural gas used for the production of ammonia. The tax amounts to approximately 60 cents a gallon for fuel and some $25 a tonne of ammonia, which will rise to some $70 a tonne in the not too distant future.
Given the very serious impact that this will have upon the producers of Canada and the implications for further food production, can the Minister of Finance tell the House whether he has received any representations from his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, on this very important matter? If not, may I ask whether the Minister of Finance would undertake to review this discriminatory tax, particularly in light of the other high input costs and low commodity prices which farmers are experiencing?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I do not regard the tax to be discriminatory in any way. I know that the hon. member
Privilege-Mr. Stewart
is obviously asking me to reduce taxes, in this particular case. On Thursday the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands moved a motion calling for additional expenditures of $2 billion. The hon. member for Etobicoke Centre constantly asks me to reduce the deficit. Therefore, I do not know how I can satisfy the three hon. members simultaneously.


Charles Joseph Clark: Resign.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER RECONSIDER TAXES
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, we are dealing here with the production of food. Given the fact that the farmers of Canada have very little opportunity to pass their added costs on in the case of export markets, while in the case of domestic pricing the increased costs of production will be reflected in an increase in the cost of living, would the minister not reconsider and re-examine the situation, both from the standpoint of reducing input costs to the farmers and of reducing the cost of food to Canadians?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, no minister of Finance is so unreasonable as to refuse an hon. member's request for consideration. I will do that.


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 ninety-third report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon) on Friday, April 2, 1982, and finds that the petition meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


PRIVILEGE
Ronald Alexander Stewart: Madam Speaker, I rise on a very serious question of privilege which involves my rights as a citizen and as a member of Parliament.
A letter was addressed to me as a member of Parliament; it was correctly addressed; there can be no mistake about the name and address of the intended recipient, myself. My mail was inspected by X-ray machine by the RCMP and then opened and read by someone in the Prime Minister's Office. The RCMP X-ray inspection date stamp "Safe to Handle" is dated March 29, 1982.

April 5, 1982
Privilege - Mr. Stew an
Then, apparently, the letter was sent to the Prime Minister's Office, where it was opened and read and initialled by "B.J.M." The date and time stamp from the Prime Minister's Office is "digits 000050 received PMO 10.25 a.m., March 30, 1982". Another set of numbers was stamped on the letter and then obliterated by a white opaqueing agent. The numbers are discernible from the reverse and are "2089 133."
I received the letter in my office by regular mail on Friday, April 2, 1982. I am wondering how many similar occasions there have been. Madam Speaker, I believe I have a bona fide question of privilege. I demand an explanation from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his ironclad assurance that his office does not routinely monitor mail for members of Parliament, such as this letter or any other members' letters, or letters from persons who are not partial to his philosophy, his actions or his deeds.
I so move, Madam Speaker.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member asks for an explanation and wants you to consider that there is a question of privilege here. I have no objection to the latter, if the House wishes to go that route.
I just want to tell the House that the explanation has already been given to the hon. member, that it is a common sense, plausible explanation. There are many Stewarts in Canada and there happened to be a Stewart in the Prime Minister's Office. For some reason which I do not know and 1 am sure the post office does not know, there was a letter addressed to Mr. Stewart delivered to another Mr. Stewart, and so far as we know that was how the letter got into the stream of mail in the Prime Minister's Office. Mail is opened there, I almost dare to say, by the carload. The letter that came to the office was opened automatically. As soon as it was looked at, the reader realized that it was not addressed to the Prime Minister or to anyone in his office but to someone else. The letter was then redirected.
I think the hon. member is indulging in some kind of a hyperbole when he asks that I give some kind of guarantee that we are not in the process of opening other people's mail. Let me just say, Madam Speaker, that with the thousands of letters I get every day, we have enough to do without bothering about the hon. member's mail.


Madam Speaker:: I will look into this question and into all the facts and provide a reply on this question.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 60(1), I wish to table notice of a Ways and Means motion to amend the Petroleum Administration Act. In accordance with Standing Order 60(2), I request the Chair to designate an order of the day for consideration of this Ways and Means motion.


PARLIAMENTARY SEMESTERS ACT
Walter David Baker: for leave to introduce Bill C-649, to divide the calendar year into three parliamentary semesters.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide for three fixed semesters of Parliament in each calendar year, so that the members of the House of Commons will know when Parliament will be sitting and thus can better organize their time to perform the related duties of Members of Parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
April 5, 1982

Marc Lalonde: for leave to introduce Bill C-102, to amend the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources Act.


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

[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. 3,523, 3,692, 4,103.


Mr. Friesen: 1.	Was a Mr. Beauchemin employed by the Correctional Service at the Leclerc Institution and was he discharged by the service and, if so (a) for what reason and from what capacity (b) was he reinstated by the service and, if so (i) in what capacity (ii) what is his annual salary and what are his hours of work per week?
2.	Is a Dr. Harris employed by the service at the institution and, if so, in what capacity?
3.	Were grievances submitted by the inmates at Leclerc for the period during which Dr. Harris has been employed on matters relating to his conduct, services and functions and, if so, how many and how many were considered legitimate?
4.	What is Dr. Harris' salary and what are his hours of work per week?
5.	(a) As of September I, 1981, who was the dentist at the Leclerc Institution (b) is he still employed there (c) is he on contract (d) for how long has he been employed (e) how much time per week is he required to spend at Leclerc (f) how many inmates has the dentist seen since he was employed at the institution on an annual basis?
6.	Were grievances submitted by inmates against the dentist and, if so, how many and how many were deemed legitimate?
7.	What is the fee per visit of the dentist?
8.	What was the total amount paid to the dentist by the Service for each year he was employed?
9.	From September 1, 1980 to September 1, 1981, on how many occasions did inmates request to sec a dentist and, in each case, was the inmate seen by a dentist?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: In so far as it concerns the Correctional Service of Canada:
1.	A Mr. Beauchemin worked at the Leclerc Institution as a teacher, through the Les Ecores school board which employed him. He was not discharged but rather reassigned to the Federal Training Centre.
Mr. Beauchemin now works at the Leclerc Institution as a teacher on a contract basis. This has been the situation since July 1, 1981. He receives an annual salary of $30,000, including fringe benefits, and works 3716 hours a week.
(a)	Not applicable.
Order Paper Questions
(b)(i) and (ii) Not applicable.
2.	Yes, Dr. Jean-Guy Harris is the Assistant Warden, Medical Services at the Leclerc Institution.
3.	Yes, five grievances were submitted, three of which were upheld.
4.	The annual pay scale for Dr. Harris is from $40,281 to $50,160. The duties of the Assistant Warden, Medical Services are such that definite working hours cannot be established. In addition to holding a clinic at the institution, normally three mornings a week, Dr. Harris is on call at all times for emergencies. He is responsible for the treatment of all the patients from the Quebec region admitted to the Cite de la Sante de Laval hospital. In addition, he co-ordinates visits to emergency rooms and to out-patient clinics.
5.	(a) Dr. Edmond Khazen.
(b)	As of December 8, 1981, he was still employed by the Correctional Service of Canada.
(c)	Yes.
(d)	Since August 1, 1979.
(e)	His services are required for two sessions a day, three days a week.
(f)	Number of inmates seen by the dentist in 1979, 1,300; 1980, 1,337; 1981, 1,143, (including Decembers, 1981).
6.	Yes, one grievance was submitted and upheld.
7.	$110 a session (a session represents a half-day).
8.	Amount paid to the dentist for each year he was employed:
August 1, 1979 to December 31, 1979:	$10,400
January 1, 1980 to December 31, 1980:	25,200
January 1, 1981 to December 8, 1981:	27,900
9.	Statistics are kept on the number of inmates seen by the dentist but not on the number of inmates who request to see him.
If an inmate feels discriminated against, he can file a complaint or a grievance in accordance with the standard procedures. No complaints or grievances were received indicating that inmates who wanted to see the dentist were unable to do so.
Number of inmates who saw the dentist between September 1, 1980, and September 1, 1981:
1980	1981
September	141	January	106October	155	February	56November	102	March	89December	137	April	100May	147June	153July	105August	105September 1	0
April 5, 1982
Order Paper Questions


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What is the total number of medical staff working for the Department of Veteran Affairs?
2.	How many (a) doctors (b) registered nurses (c) paramedics (d) nurses' assistants (e) other support staff work in the department?
3.	What is the average age of the doctors working for the department?
4.	How many doctors began working with the department (a) immediately after graduating from medical school (b) after (i) two (ii) five (iii) ten (iv) fifteen (v) twenty years of private practice?
5.	What proportion of the medical staff now employed with the department, including Pension Advocates, had training in tropical diseases and how many have (a) taken courses (b) a degree or diploma in the field?
6.	How many Canadian veterans died as a result of a tropical disease and how many living veterans have a tropical disease which is now under treatment?
7.	How many tropical disease specialists does the department employ?
8.	How many non-doctors on the medical staff have a specialized knowledge in the field of tropical diseases?
9.	Are tropical disease refresher or updating courses offered to doctors and medical staff?
10.	Will the department be sending a medical staff to the International Congress of Parasitology in Toronto to be held between August 7 and 14, 1982 and (a) if so, how many will attend (b) if not, for what reason?
11.	(a) Does the department's Medical Branch have up-to-date diagnostic facilities and (i) if so, are they readily accessible to veterans (ii) if not, for what reason (b) do the facilities adequately meet the needs and demands placed on them by the veteran population?
12.	(a) What methodology is the department using in its testing of Hong Kong and other veterans for strongyloides and is the method sufficient, considering the fact that the disease may still appear in test samples after some ten samples have been examined (b) how long will the process take and will the findings be made public (c) will compensation be given to veterans who are discovered to have strongyloides and, if so, what will it be?
13.	Does the department plan to expand or reduce the size of the medical staff in the future?
14.	Does the department intend to introduce compulsory tropical disease testing for (a) doctors (b) nurses (c) other medical staff and (i) if so, on what date and what kind (ii) if not, for what reason?


Hon. W. Bennett Campbell (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1.	Seventy.
2.	(a) 70 (51 full-time, 19 part-time), (b) 403 (320 full-time, 83 part-time), (c) 100, (d) 380, (e) 80.
3.	Fifty-three.
4.	(a) four, (b)(i) 10, (ii) 16, (iii) 14, (iv) 3, (v) 23.
5.	This question cannot be answered in specific terms since many professionals have varying amounts of training during their careers, (a) 16 (23 percent), (b) One. No Pension Advocates are employed by the department.
6.	Unknown. The majority of veterans are treated by doctors of their choice without any involvement of the department. Except for those veterans treated in DVA's two remaining hospitals, diseases and causes of death are not made known to Veterans Affairs.
7.	One.
8.	None.
9.	No, as non-departmental medical specialists are used on a referral basis.
10.	Yes, (a) two.
11.	(a) The department makes regular use of the most up-to-date diagnostic facilities available in the country, (i) yes, (ii) N/A.
(b) Yes.
12.	(a) Methodology agreed to by departmental medical staff and the designated National Centre for Parasitology. The method is considered sufficient by the specialists involved.
(b)	The testing will take six months and the results will be made public.
(c)	Compensation (other than the costs of testing and treatment which will be borne by DVA) is a matter for the Canadian Pension Commission to determine.
13.	The department's medical staff will decrease as hospitals are transferred. Medical services will increasingly be purchased from community resources.
14.	(a) No, (b) no, (c) no. (i) N/A. (ii) There is no indicated need for the testing of veterans services health professional staff at this time.


Mr. MacKay: 1.	How many bids were received from individuals or companies with regard to the disposal of the Argus aircraft and, in each case, what was the amount of the bid?
2.	What was the amount of the successful bid and was the successful bid lower than several other bids?
3.	What amount was paid to IMP for mothballing the Argus for storage?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1. Please refer to question No. 3,893 Part 2 answered on April 1, 1982.
2.	Please refer to question No. 3,893 Part 4 and Part 2 answered on April 1, 1982.
3.	Please refer to question No. 3,893 Part 1(c) answered on April 1, 1982.
[English)


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


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
April 5, 1982



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Andre Ouellet (for the Deputy Prime Minister and the 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 read the third time and do pass.


Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, I have some comments I should like to make in the House concerning this bill which, I feel, is extremely important. In fact, I feel that the draft legislation we are now discussing, Madam Speaker, has consequences that could be compared to those of the bill on constitutional reform. When the subject is fiscal arrangements, relations between the provinces and the federal government and sums of money that run into hundreds of billions of dollars, I think we can say, without exaggeration, that this legislation is of vital importance both to the entire country and to each province individually, and more specifically, where it concerns the federal government's contribution to health services and post-secondary education in the provinces. I have said, and I say it again without hesitation, that this bill is particularly important. A number of hon. members have spoken to the bill, Mr. Speaker. We are now at the third reading stage, and I assume that we are getting ready to pass this bill.
A number of widely differing views have been expressed, and as the provinces have also indicated earlier that they disagreed with the federal government, I therefore feel that today, as a member of this House, it is my duty to remind the government that it is important to negotiate and to spend a considerable amount of time negotiating, especially when large amounts of money are involved and objectives are being discussed that are vital to the entire Canadian nation. I know there have been all kinds of comments for months, and that the provinces were almost unanimous in opposing this bill. Of course, we had some amendments. At first, even the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) had some trouble with the figures he tabled in the House, some mistakes were made, there were some computation errors, and all this has been part of the debate. We are now about to adopt this legislation, and we are also faced with the fact that we have, in a sense, failed; that is, we would have preferred to give the provinces some proposals or a decision they would have been able to accept unanimously.
The members on the opposite side will say that the provinces have a voracious appetite, but they will have to admit that the
Federal Transfers to Provinces
government has made decisions without sufficient consultation with the provinces. And speaking of the provinces, my own province has, through its representatives, made a number of comments on this legislation, and I have also listened to my colleagues opposite as they explained the nature of the proposals contained in the bill, while quoting very specific figures. Although they are saying in Quebec that under this legislation, Quebec will see its payments reduced, it is a fact that in absolute terms, Quebec will be receiving several thousand dollars more than last year. On the other hand, there are those who say that if the federal government had not changed the formula, Quebec would be getting even more money in the next few years.
At least one thing is clear. With the new formula, the federal government will be getting a better deal than before and will be paying out $5 billion less over the next five years than it would be paying under the old formula. There are no two ways about it. And we know for a fact that the costs of the services in question which are vital to all Canadians are increasing and will continue to do so according to the economic scenario we have now. In those circumstances, obviously the provinces are not wildly enthusiastic, nor is my own province wildly enthusiastic about this reduction in funds, compared with projections made several years ago, and it is perfectly normal for the representatives of my province to express their disappointment with the decision or decisions made by the federal government, and their impact on Quebec particularly, as a result of the formula changeover.
Mr. Speaker, previous speakers have already mentioned quite a number of figures in their speeches, which I found quite interesting, but I have no intention of repeating them. I think we have had an ample supply of statistical data provided by all three parties and by a number of members of this House.
Mr. Speaker, I feel it is extremely important that the government should show more respect in its relations with the provinces. This legislation is essential because it involves billions of dollars and absolutely vital services, and the federal government should recognize its responsibility as the originator of these services and programs. It should also recognize and accept the fact that the provinces are entitled to not only make representations with respect to the allocation of the funds they need but also with respect to the economic situation facing us today.
The present government cannot ignore these circumstances and disclaim responsibility for the problems confronting Canadians today. The way I see it, the record of this government's administration during the past 15 years has not been particularly encouraging, which has probably led the provinces to claim that, deficit for deficit, the federal government has not been setting a particularly good example.

April 5, 1982
Federal Transfers to Provinces
The provincial governments, including the government in my own province, may be criticized, and they have been, for their present deficits. However, I feel that the worst example has been set by the present federal government, which has been increasing the national debt and its deficits during the last 15 years I have been here in the House.
However, one can only go so far, and it seems the government has realized this. In fact, the Minister of Finance has been dragging us through the mill during the past few months, and the provinces are, as it were, squirming in a financial strait-jacket, because the federal government is reducing its deficit by cutting funds to the provinces. At this point, I must say, and I have said it before, that there may be dangerous developments in the years to come. In other areas, there is the distinct impression that the government, because of its financial circumstances for which it is, in fact, to blame, is increasingly making decisions that go against the wishes of the provinces and are not preceded by the negotiations appropriate to a federal system.


Mr. Tousignant:: My, you are serious this afternoon!


Roch La Salle: I seem to be getting some comments from the other side of the House, Mr. Speaker. On the subject of federal-provincial relations, I feel that in a federal system that purports to respect the status of the provinces, there is at least an obligation to encourage negotiations and conduct them in a manner that reflects respect for the true federal concept. That is not what is happening.
I understand that a number of hon. members, and it has become more apparent in the last year or so, have fallen into the habit of blaming the provinces for situations that are prevalent across Canada. I feel that we who are sitting in this federal Parliament have an obligation to demand that this government should respect its partners, the provinces, without exception. Members opposite seem to think this is highly amusing. During the Constitution debate, there were some unfortunate incidents, thanks to the persistence and dedication of an opposition that earnestly wanted all the parties concerned, all governments in Canada, to participate in the exercise of constitutional reform, and I feel that we, in any case, need have no regrets for having made a special effort to make the government understand the spirit of federalism.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) states that, in his opinion, co-operative federalism is dead, we have to ask ourselves serious questions and the provinces have to be very concerned, as do all Canadians, about the nature of future negotiations. In other fields, Mr. Speaker, I could refer to certain comments which I also heard. It is obvious that this government has decided to reduce its negotiating process and its discussions with the provinces because it is tired of dealing and discussing with them, which is of course dangerous, because the people opposite will then try to convince us daily that we have to work for national unity. This same government
will try to take credit for saving the country and working in the interests of Canada. However, it is not by making unilateral decisions that we can promote and strengthen the bonds of real federalism. I believe that I am quite justified in reminding this government how important it is at every opportunity to allow the provinces to take part in a greater number of major national decisions and to find compromise solutions with the provinces, especially when dealing with such an important bill as the one which we are now discussing at the third reading stage. This bill deals with billions of dollars and has very important consequences for the service sectors involved. I fail to understand why the government has not managed to bring the provinces to an acceptable consensus and compromise. I must conclude that, because of its actions, attitude and arrogance, the government has succeeded in creating a climate of suspicion.
In every area, whether it be economic development, constitutional reform or fiscal arrangements, a climate of suspicion has been created in this Parliament because of the government's reprehensible and regrettable attitude. This is why the premiers and the ministers responsible cannot trust it at federal-provincial meetings. Of course, this multiplies the problems, and because of this, negotiations take longer. However, since this is somewhat annoying for the Prime Minister of Canada and his cabinet, they make an increasing number of decisions on their own, which is regrettable and goes against the very principles of true federalism which must survive because the future of the country is based on this concept. The present government no longer believes in it. I say once again that we shall see more and more direct action by the federal government about economic development and more and more programs governed, imposed and administered federally without proper consultation with the provinces. I sincerely regret this and I must warn the government that it is not the way to save the country or to serve it well.
I could refer to the history of the last fifteen years, especially in my province. I know that this will also shock my colleagues opposite. However, as I have said before, the record points to an embarrassing failure on economic matters and the Constitution on the part of a government which would now want us to believe that it has succeeded. If we talk about the economy, the situation in which we now find ourselves is hard to believe. As for this bill, I can appreciate the arguments of the various provinces and especially my own concerning provincial needs. I believe that we must go beyond party politics when we are dealing with such an essential piece of legislation.
I suggest that it is both possible and necessary to do so. I do not take hon. members opposite to task for having quoted exact figures in connection with the computation formula or the bill, nor do I question their figures; yet, they should agree with me that the old formula would have brought more money in and that the Quebec Minister of Finance is complaining
April 5, 1982

that he will be getting a little less money because of the change; but, as I was saying, Quebec will be getting a few dollars more than last year, and the fact remains that over the next five years, the federal government will hoard in its own coffers $5 billion which the provinces would have received otherwise. It is quite normal that in view of their requirements and needs, the provinces should demonstrate that they are somewhat disappointed with this bill, and I should like the House to consider the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) for a more in-depth study to be-


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Tousignant) rises on a point of order.


Henri Tousignant: Would the hon. member accept a question, either now or at the end of his remarks?


Roch La Salle: I think that the hon. member who wishes to ask me a question will have the possibility of doing so, for I do not intend to deal with this issue for 40 minutes; when I have completed my remarks, the Chair may invite him to ask his question, and if I can, I will certainly give him an answer. I think it is therefore important, Mr. Speaker, to remind hon. members that well-prepared negotiations are necessary when such major legislative measures are brought forward. I was about to say that the climate of trust which existed 15 years ago has vanished entirely. We have seen all sorts and we have had various indications for a while that the mistrust which has prevailed in this Parliament is clearly due to an arrogant attitude on the part of this government, and because of this mistrust, problems in Quebec become still more serious whenever the federal government is involved. I should like to take this opportunity to invite hon. members opposite to make an additional effort to encourage discussions and negotiations between the two governments. Both governments cannot continue to stir up a confrontation, because this would prove too costly for our constituents who do not deserve that partisanship be shown at their expense.
I think that the time has come to remind all my colleagues that negotiations and the respect of our provincial governments are essential, and I think that all those who still believe in a true federalism would agree, but should one believe in that true federalism? When I hear the responsible government authorities, the ministers of the Crown increasingly give the impression that they are determined to act alone without consulting the provinces, that is not the way to strengthen the ties among the regions and to ensure a promising future to the country, Mr. Speaker. The study of this legislation today affords me the opportunity to urge the government to reflect seriously on the negotiations with the provinces, which have greatly disintegrated and deteriorated in the past few years. However, the Leader of this Government in the opinion of
Federal Transfers to Provinces
millions of Canadians, seemed capable of uniting this country, but over the past 15 years and at present, I do not think any government has managed better to tear our country apart and to create such dreadful conditions as those we are now experiencing. Under the circumstances, instead of turning away, of ruling out further negotiations and denying the proper respect which must be shown to provincial governments, it would be to the advantage of this government to resume negotiations more seriously than ever before and to urge governments to co-operate in promoting the economic recovery of the country.
Not long ago, the Right Hon. Prime Minister appealed to the unions, urging them to co-operate with the federal government, because otherwise he would once again be forced to make unilateral decisions. During the past 15 years, the Prime Minister has had plenty of time to bring the unions, businesses and the provinces to the negotiating table, but as a result of his unbending attitude, instead of bringing these people together, he has done the exact opposite. Today, the situation being what it is, we must make a last effort and urge the government to be far more attentive to the problems facing the provinces and to those confronting millions of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to dwell further on this bill, which, although I do understand its ramifications, is not easy to understand since it is a sophisticated piece of legislation. In any case, because of this bill, the provinces will once more be obliged to seek other funding sources if they wish to maintain the same level of health services and post-secondary education. To reduce its deficit and lighten its financial burden, the federal government has decided to shift some of this burden to the provinces. Considering the present economic situation, for which I hold the federal government largely responsible, there will be other opportunities to prove this.
I think this government would have been well-advised to listen to the suggestion made by my colleague, the member for Kingston and the Islands, who asked for a two-year extension during which time the government would have a chance to prove to the provinces that it has sufficient flexibility to make federalism more viable and more acceptable. It is true that in Quebec, people are becoming more and more disenchanted with federalism, which was certainly not the case a few years ago. However, during the past 15 years, Mr. Speaker, and I say it once again, we have seen Quebecers becoming increasingly alienated from the federal government, despite the fact that there have been some six dozen members from Quebec here on a fairly regular basis, plus a Prime Minister from Quebec, all of whom have been unable to cure this alienation and have even made it worse through their frequent tendency toward confrontation and arrogance. This has encouraged a negative attitude to our federal institutions instead of making

April 5, 1982
Federal Transfers to Provinces
people understand the positive side of federalism, people are now probably going to accuse me of siding with it. No, Mr. Speaker. Once more I want to ask this government which has such a strong contingent, at least in numbers, of members from Quebec, to make a last attempt to explain to Quebec government representatives the scope of the fiscal arrangements or at least discuss certain objectives that could be better pursued jointly instead of duplicating our efforts.
I earnestly hope that the impact of this legislation will not cause too much hardship in my home province. I also hope that the government will act on the request I made today that it increase its negotiations and strengthen its relations with the provinces instead of dropping negotiations entirely and denying their importance in order to justify unilateral action, which is altogether undesirable. Increasingly, I have the impression that this government wants to act unilaterally, and I insist, and I cannot say it often enough, that this is not the way to strengthen this country. If we really want to keep alienating Canadians from the federal system, we should go on doing what we are doing now, but if we really want to strengthen this country, if we want to make all Canadians, wherever they happen to be, benefit from federal negotiations with the provinces, there must be a change in attitude and there must be a change soon.
The atmosphere in this Parliament has become an atmosphere of mistrust. Provincial premiers, unions and members of the business world are finding it very difficult to trust this government today. This is an extremely negative factor in view of the present economic situation. If we really want to turn around the economy, I would urge the government to respect the status of the provinces and to make an unprecedented effort to get them to work together with him. I wonder whether the Prime Minister is really interested in getting together with the provinces and working with them. If he is not, Mr. Speaker, I think he should be prepared to make a decision, and it should be that the interests of this country must take precedence over his own interests and objectives. I hope hon. members and ministers on the opposite side will take this opportunity to remind the Prime Minister that his principal role is to unite this country and to help the provinces, and in a federal system, this means supporting the efforts and priorities of the provinces. I feel that these priorities are not incompatible with our greater national objectives. Mr. Speaker, I hope that the arguments, speeches and comments that have been made in connection with Bill C-97 will at least have had the effect of reminding the members of this government that consultation and federal-provincial relations are of paramount importance, now more than ever before. I hope that the recommendations I am making today will be taken seriously, because in making them, I am convinced, with all the sincerity of which any member here is capable, that our country and our provinces will be the better for increased consultation, which in my view is absolutely necessary.


Henri Tousignant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Tousignant), on a point of order.


Henri Tousignant: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) has been talking about unbending and arrogant attitudes of the government, and is accusing this government of refusing to release sufficient funds in its negotiations on fiscal arrangements. The hon. member goes on to contradict himself, when he says that the deficit is too high and that we should try to bring it down. I have a simple question for the hon. member and I would like him to answer yes or no. Could the hon. member inform the House whether he thinks the money received by the province of Quebec is well spent by that province?


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I think the government of Quebec makes the best possible use it can of the money it receives under these arrangements. I hardly think it would be better spent by the federal government! In any case, I think the fiscal arrangements we are discussing here will give millions of dollars to the Quebec government as well as to the other provinces, and I trust they will be used for the services indicated in the bill, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I will not use this opportunity in debate on third reading to go over once again the arguments I have made earlier. I will not go into the argument about the revenue guarantee again, for instance, because I believe that even in the short time provided to the opposition for debating the bill, we have succeeded in getting across to the public what has been going on and what kind of dishonesty the government is involved in when it says that it is only cutting the revenue guarantee and is not cutting money for health care and post-secondary education. We have made the case on the basis of the government's own contention over the last five years about the revenue guarantee, that it is cutting money for health care and post-secondary education. That will become more clear as events unfold when the new fiscal arrangements come into force and people see the effect the cutbacks will have on health care and post-secondary education.
Neither will I go into the argument about the way Manitoba is treated in the new equalization formula embodied in Bill C-97. I will not go into that because I still entertain a hope, however fading at this point, that before the end of the day we may yet see an amendment offered by the government to redress in some way the injustice done to Manitoba in this formula.
April 5, 1982

Rather than repeat the arguments already made-although it is tempting to do so-I want to reflect on our medicare system and some of its problems, in particular the growing unhapiness of the doctors within medicare. We know that there is a dispute in Manitoba between the government and the doctors about the role of binding arbitration, fees and the whole negotiating process. We also know that there is a dispute in Ontario. It seems that in one province after another there is a crisis in the relationship between doctors and the provincial governments and between doctors and medicare as such. I should like to make some observations about that and hope that they will prove helpful to the government.
1 agree with the Canadian Medical Association's contention that medicare is underfunded. I think I should say at the beginning that there are areas of agreement between the New Democratic Party and the Canadian Medical Association. Some time ago I took the time to read the text of an address by the president of the Canadian Medical Association to the St. John's Rotary Club on February 25, 1982. I should like to make a few observations about that speech.
Before I comment on those areas on which I think there is common ground between the CM A and the NDP, 1 should like to refer to an anxiety that was expressed by the president of the CMA at the commencement of his address. He speculated that the audience might well be expected to perceive his remarks as being just one more pitch for higher fees and higher incomes for doctors. I think he put his finger on the impotence, the powerlessness, of the Canadian Medical Association's attempt to alert Canadians to the dangers of prolonged underfunding of our health care system. Why is it that no one seems to listen to the Canadian Medical Association? The fact is that otherwise legitimate concerns of the medical profession are compromised by the consistent link which doctors make between the underfunding of health care, on the one hand, and their incomes, on the other hand.
Having travelled across the country with the parliamentary task force on federal-provincial fiscal arrangements last year and listened to many different groups concerned with, and/or employed in, our health care system, I regret to say that it was only the doctors who came before the committee in the public hearings to talk about their own incomes. It was as if higher incomes for physicians would somehow solve all problems; as if higher incomes for physicians would mean more chronic care beds; as if higher incomes for physicians would mean more modernized equipment and facilities in hospitals; and as if higher incomes for physicians would mean more nurses in hospitals.
What has also compromised the concern of the medical profession about medicare and about underfunding is the obvious philosophical hostility which some of its spokesmen display toward medicare. One gets the feeling that higher incomes would satisfy some of the discontent in the medical profession but that for another, more vocal group-I would suggest a minority-the root of the problem is medicare itself. It is as if they object to the very principles of medicare and therefore look for every opportunity to discredit the system.
Federal Transfers to Provinces
I believe the vast majority of Canadians regard medicare as one of the great post-war achievements in social policy. They cannot be blamed if they are unmoved by, somewhat skeptical of and suspicious about the concern of doctors for medicare, given the criticism that is sometimes heaped on medicare in principle by certain spokespersons for the medical profession.
In my view, the problems of how much physicians ought to be paid and what the mechanism ought to be for determining their income in detail after a general level is set, desperately need to be dealt with, but they must be dealt with separately from the issue of the general underfunding of hospital care or the need for other improvements in our health care system. In this respect I think it can be fairly charged that the medical profession is making the medicare crisis and the debate about medicare more difficult by constantly clouding more important issues with their own self-interest and with their rhetoric about the decline in physicians' incomes. This rhetoric, Mr. Speaker, usually employs 1971 income as the base, without ackowledg-ing that this represents a considerable increase over premedicare income. I pointed this out to the president of the Canadian Medical Association when I wrote to him some weeks ago.
An article appeared in today's The Globe and Mail entitled "Shed No Tears for MDs". It points out that it is misleading to show only what has happened to doctors" incomes since 1971. Indeed, they seem to have gone down since 1971, but it is misleading to use that year as a base because, prior to then, the incomes of doctors were considerably lower. If the truth be told, what happened was that in the years just prior to medicare when they could see medicare coming, physicians' fees started to go up. This was to ensure that when medicare did arrive, the public would be paying these higher fees. The doctors had not charged them until they could see medicare coming. I have heard medicare described not so much as medicare but doctor care. In other words, it ensures that doctors will receive an income from each and every patient dealt with.
I was pleased to see in the presentation of the Canadian Medical Association to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs that for once it made an argument about what was happening to medicare and to patient care and left out the argument about physicians' incomes. If this is an indication that the Canadian Medical Association is moving away from trying to blend these two issues in what I have already said is a very unhelpful way, then I welcome it. I think the two matters need to be dealt with separately, if possible.
The CMA is quite correct in pointing out that Canada spends less of its GNP on health care than many other nations. For instance, the United States spends some 2 per cent more of its GNP on health care. This is not in itself evidence of underfunding in Canada. There are millions of poor Americans who have little or no access to the kind of health care to which

April 5, 1982
Federal Transfers to Provinces
almost all Canadians are accustomed, despite the fact that Americans spend 2 per cent more of their GNP on it. The higher costs in the United States are as much the result of higher physicians' incomes and irrational technological competition between unco-ordinated private health centres, as any greater commitment to health care.
The fact that we are spending 2 per cent less of our GNP on health care gives cause for reflection on just how badly health care costs in Canada are rising. We have heard much concern about rising health care costs. Sometimes the concern is tied to the fact that our health care system is being funded publicly which, according to certain ideologues on the right, is a guaranteed way to have higher costs. The fact of the matter is that with a publicly-funded system we in Canada have a much more cost-efficient health care system than the Americans who do it entirely through the private sector. Nevertheless, I agree more support is needed for health care in Canada, not less. This is why my party and I strenuously oppose the proposed cutbacks in federal transfer payments to the provinces.
Furthermore, New Democrats across the country have been vigilant in their opposition to spending restraint in health care practised by most provincial governments since block funding was introduced in 1977. We have been active in relating to the Canadian public the kinds of service deficiencies which the Canadian Medical Association eloquently pointed out in its presentation to the Finance committee or indeed whenever it has the opportunity to do so. No party has a better record of providing facilities and required staff for better chronic health care than that accomplished by various NDP provincial governments in the construction of nursing homes; for instance, my home province of Manitoba comes to mind.
In attempting to provide more public money for such needs, we often run into the opposition of none other than those who now like to lament the inadequacies of medicare. The political right is opposed to increases in government spending and to a more equitable and fair tax system because it thinks that would somehow eliminate incentives and not create the correct investment climate. It is opposed to the measures with which we could pay for increased spending, but at the same time expresses concern about cutbacks in funding for these particular programs.
This is my problem with the approach of hon. members of the Progressive Conservative Party to the issue. I have been happy to have them as allies in opposing the withdrawal of the revenue guarantee, but at this point in the debate I must confess a certain amount of skepticism about the position they take. What is true is that day after day, year after year, they have been instrumental in developing a paranoia about government deficits, upon which the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) now plays as a justification for cutbacks in these programs. I say to the colleagues on my right that they are not without blame or totally non-culpable in the matter. Many of their provincial colleagues are even more to blame.
There is a kind of inconsistency in the approach of the Progressive Conservative Party to the issue. I ask them, in as generous a spirit as I am capable of, to reflect on the contradictions in the rhetoric, on the one hand, about reducing
government spending and, on the other hand, about condemning the government whenever it reduces its spending. We in this corner can at least say that we are consistent. We condemned the government for reducing its spending in this area, and we say that if it means the government has to collect more money in order to fund particular services, we will support it. This is something which hampers the credibility of the Conservative party when it comes to medicare; it is no secret that it is not one of its strong points. There is not a great deal of deep-seated trust among Canadians when it comes to the relationship or the attachment of the Conservative party to medicare.
The underfunding problem in medicare is related to the larger political and economic problem that in a period of shrinking economic growth we must have a greater sharing of our common wealth of such things as health care if we are to maintain and, indeed one could argue, to restore standards. We in the NDP are in favour of a greater sharing of our common wealth. We would be prepared to reform our tax systems in order to make it possible. Is the Canadian Medical Association prepared to advance the argument that those people who made exorbitant incomes last year but paid no taxes at all should be more fairly taxed and should pay their share? Is the CMA prepared to advance the argument that corporations which do not pay their fair share of taxes should pay more taxes in order to fund the health care system? It seems to me that this is the route which must be taken, particularly in these difficult economic times. Are Conservatives prepared to advance a fair and more progressive tax system? 1 do not think so, because every time anybody so much as breathes about reforming the tax system, they are up on their feet talking about the investment climate. It seems that in order to please members of the Progressive Conservative Party when it comes to the tax system, we have to guarantee people can make as much money as they want and then they will do us the favour of doing business in the country; that is not our approach to the tax system.
When it comes to the medicare debate, it is important for people in obvious positions of leadership to be philosophically honest, whether it is the Canadian Medical Association or anyone else. If they are in favour of medicare as a system, then in my opinion they should be advocating more public and political commitment to an appropriate amount of government support, not advocating short-term measures such as more extra billing, a user fee here or charging more for hospital care there. Short-term solutions which introduce private mechanisms for funding added costs of health care in difficult economic times are shortsighted and will destroy medicare as Canadians now understand it. So when the Canadian people can believe that the Canadian Medical Association is unreservedly committed to the survival of medicare and its basic principles, then perhaps others concerned about health care will be able to join hands with the CMA in co-operative action to make sure all Canadians have the best possible health care system and the best possible health, in a system which does not use doctors or anyone else as scapegoats, one in which
April 5, 1982

there is an appropriate balance between the professional integrity and the freedom of doctors and the responsibility of the community to ensure that the allocation of medical resources, scarce or otherwise, is an accountable community decision and not something left to the marketplace.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), Mr. Speaker, now says that she wants to bring in a Canada health act. I hope she means that she wants to develop a new fiscal arrangement for health care superior to the one we had up until today, and superior to the one we will have after third reading of Bill C-97. It seems to me that the fiscal arrangements for health and education get worse every time they are renegotiated, although you cannot say of this one that it was renegotiated because it was unilateral. I hope she has it in mind to bring all existing legislation under one act which will involve certain standards and conditions having to be met in order for provinces to receive federal money. One of the things I hope will be in that new act is the prohibition of extra billing by physicians, and a mechanism to ensure that provinces see to it that there is no extra billing in their jurisdiction.
The medical profession has some arguments in favour of extra billing. They talk about the doctor-patient relationship and the need for a cash transaction in order to enhance the integrity of that relationship. I guess it is only coincidence that this argument is advanced more strenuously the more doctors feel their incomes are not keeping up to what they think they should be. We did not hear that argument as much when doctors were satisfied with their incomes. I guess their relationships with patients had more integrity then. In any case, we hear more now the argument that what is at stake is that relationship and somehow the transfer of money between the doctor and his patient makes the relationship more worth while.
Mr. Speaker, I am only being partly facetious when I say that this sounds like an argument by analogy for the virtues of prostitution: something is only worth while when there is a cash transaction. I question the value of that argument. It sounds good on the surface, but the minute you begin to look at it, it sort of falls away, besides which it is an insult to all the professions who do not operate on a fee-for-service basis. The argument advanced by the CMA concerning the need for money in order to enhance their doctor-patient relationships is, by implication, a charge against the value of the relationships other professionals have where they do not charge on a fee-for-service basis.


An hon. Member:: How many hours does a doctor work a week?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I hear someone ask how many hours a doctor works a week. I was just going to get to that. Doctors claim that in order to keep up their income they have to see more patients, and that this is one of the main reasons the quality of health care is going down. They have to practise what is called "turnstile medicine". They only get so much per visit so they
Federal Transfers to Provinces
have to get them in and out, get more visits in, in order to keep their incomes up.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: That is a distortion.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: That is exactly what I have heard any number of times from the CMA and various provincial medical associations.


Donald W. Munro: You have the wrong verb in there, that is your trouble.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I have said this before, Mr. Speaker, and it is nothing new, but if what the doctors say is true, it seems to be nothing more than a euphemism for manipulating the market. Surely, many people only come back to the doctor's office if they are told to come back. There is no line up at the door; they come to the doctor's office if they are told there is a need to come back. If there is a deterioration in the quality of health care as a result of doctors having to see more and more patients in order to keep their income up, then that kind of practice is obviously suspect.


Donald W. Munro: It is a good thing you are covered by parliamentary privilege.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Clergymen do not charge per sermon, Mr. Speaker. We just give freely of our time.
Enough said about medicare, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to put on the record some of the concerns I have over the arguments advanced by the doctors. I do not think doctors are somehow sacred, and I do not think it should be regarded as such a nasty thing to get up here and question some of the arguments they advance about their incomes and their position in medicare. They are answerable to the political process and to public dialogue, just like anyone else. It seems to me that some of them would like to escape that kind of accountability, but there is no retreat from the fact that everyone, doctors, lawyers and everyone else, will have to be more and more accountable if we are serious about the democratization of society. People will have to be accountable for their decisions and not be able to hide behind professional privilege or whatever. That is true not only of doctors but all professions, and it is something we have to keep in mind.
There has been a deterioration in the respect that people have for all professions, for teachers and lawyers. Of course, they have always had a certain disrespect for lawyers, which is a healthy thing. However, this has been happening to all professions in general, which I think is probably a good thing, and doctors should not feel as though they have been singled out. Rather, they should see what is happening to them in the larger social perspective and not blame medicare or any other system as the cause of their problems.
I would like to make a few remarks concerning post-secondary education, the other aspect to the funding that we are concerned about when we talk about federal-provincial fiscal arrangements under the established programs financing act.

April 5, 1982
Federal Transfers to Provinces
Many students, and others, have a growing anxiety concerning the future of post-secondary education. In part there is a feeling that university education does not provide the kind of opportunity it once did. Of course, many think that it still does provide opportunity. But, at one time, it was a truism to say that a university education provided upward mobility, particularly for those who came from a lower-income group or those down the socioeconomic ladder, so to speak. It was the means whereby they could proceed to greater and greater things.
What has happened is that we have begun to realize two things. First, it has not been as great an instrument of social mobility as we would like to believe. When we consider who is attending university, we find there has not been as much progress as we would like to think. For instance, we have not ensured that people from working class backgrounds would actually make it into university in significant numbers. And, even if they do get there, they do not have as much of a guarantee as in the past that a university education will be the means to achieve a success story, or however one wants to describe it.
I think that over the years we have placed too much emphasis on education as a means to provide a greater standard of living and income. Now when we have reached the point at which that can no longer be said to be the case, we find there is a crisis in the perception of post-secondary education.
Unfortunately, I think the government is operating out of this crisis perception. I think that the government has been hinting, as is evident by some of the rhetoric in the debate over post-secondary education, that it wants post-secondary education to be even more instrumental in its view than it has been up until now. It wants to tie the goals of the post-secondary educational community to the needs of the economy.
Of course, no one wants to say that our education system should be independent of the needs of the economy. However, what we and many in the post-secondary educational community are concerned about, and rightly so, is that the government will take an overly instrumental view of post-secondary education. We fear that the government will merely see postsecondary education as a form of manpower training, and that over the years it will begin to underfund those aspects of postsecondary education which are valuable in and of themselves. Those are the aspects which help to create the critical minds which can provide the kind of intelligent and reflective debate which is so necessary to the ongoing health of the political life of a democracy. This is the long-term consideration.
I become very concerned when I hear the Secretary of State (Mr. Regan) discussing a voucher system whereby the federal government would actually pull money from the general funding for post-secondary education and give it to students, as individuals, in the form of vouchers. I last heard this advocated by the libertarians during the provincial election in Manitoba in 1969. I thought it was sort of a fringe idea. However, it now seems that it is being actively considered by the federal government.
What would happen in that case? The federal government could then discriminate against those courses that it felt were not as useful to the economy or to its political future. If one wanted courses for a high-tech job, one could receive a voucher of $5,000; but if one wanted to take philosophy, one would only receive $5. This is what I am talking about. It would give the federal government an incredible amount of manipulative power and should cause us grave concern.
We do, however, support the desire of the Secretary of State to have more national dialogue about the role of post-secondary education. In this respect, I do not quite understand why the government will not agree to something like, or identical to, a royal commission on the role of post-secondary education, what the CAUT called for, the equivalent of the first Hall report with regard to post-secondary education. Instead, the government wants to do the same thing it does concerning nuclear power and everything else one can imagine. It wants to have its own little, internal kind of inquiry where one never gets to see the terms of reference, one never gets to hear what the government is thinking or proposing, and then it shows up with a bill one day and gives the House a couple of weeks in which to pass it.
The government would have the support of many people in trying to develop more of a national discussion about the role of post-secondary education. For this reason, I agree with the task force proposal that the funding for health care and postsecondary education be separated so that we could have separate discussions. It is very difficult to tell what the government is spending on each when they are both lumped together in such a way. It also blurs the lines of accountability.
I hope the government will actively consider, at some point in the future, the creation of separate fiscal arrangements for health care and post-secondary education. In relation to health care standards, it should ensure a mechanism whereby the federal government could bring delinquent provinces into line.
It seems to me that this is probably an historic low point for federal-provincial fiscal arrangements as they pertain to health care and post-secondary education. I hope we have sort of bottomed out and that, from here on in, we can begin the process of putting into place a better fiscal arrangement for health care and post-secondary education.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West);: Mr. Speaker, third reading of Bill C-97, respecting federal-provincial fiscal arrangements and established programs financing, provides the last chance to record, for public attention, the fear and concern that these new measures will adversely affect health, education and other social services across Canada. The debate on Bill C-97 and the limited opportunity for public representations before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs have made it abundantly clear that the changes in equalization provisions and in federal contributions to established services will seriously affect the financial ability of many provinces to continue all government services at current levels and standards.
April 5, 1982

It is unfortunate, as we meet today, that we are under the directive from the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) that, unless this bill is passed, the financial provisions and the provinces affected by them will be endangered. It was with that threat hanging over our heads that we hastened to complete deliberations on this bill which will have such far-reaching effects for the provinces and for the residents of those provinces which are dependent upon transfer payments for their very financial existence.
The government's claim is that $105 billion will be transferred to the provinces over the next five years to support equalization and established programs, principally, health care and post-secondary education. The Minister of Finance tells us that this amount is substantially larger than the $61 billion transferred to the provinces for equalization and established programs in the five years ending March 31, 1982.
While the proposed contribution appears generous, let us remember the rate at which total federal expenditures have increased over the years. For the fiscal year 1980-1981, total federal expenditures were $58.6 billion. Five years later, for fiscal year 1985-86, total federal expenditures are forecast to reach $105 billion. As a result, federal expenditures will almost double in five years.
It is not surprising, then, that an increase from $61 billion to $105 billion for federal transfer payments to provinces for a subsequent five-year period might result in less real financial support to the provinces. The important bottom line on the government's new proposals contained in Bill C-97 is the net effect or result on provincial finances.
It has been said time and time again in this debate, but never has it been denied, that the net effect or result on all of the provinces collectively is that federal transfer payments will be reduced in this five-year period commencing April 1, 1982, by $5.7 billion. That is, the federal treasury will be saved $5.7 billion by applying the new formulas enacted by Bill C-97. To take Nova Scotia as an example, Mr. Speaker, this change will result in a decrease in revenues from transfer payments of at least $100 million and possibly an amount as high as $200 million. If you transpose that into the population available to support the revenues of the province of Nova Scotia, it means an additional amount per taxpayer of almost $300. If you spread it across the whole population over that time frame, of course the amount is less; but we have to recognize that it is only from the taxpayers that the government can obtain revenues. The result of this saving to the federal government is a deficit to the provinces that receive transfer payments, and that eventually will have to be passed on to the residents and citizens of those provinces.
Who can quarrel, Mr. Speaker, with an attempt by the Government of Canada to reduce its massive deficit, a deficit which has been running close to $10 billion annually and a public debt in excess of $128 billion that soaks up one dollar in every four revenue dollars? That is a deficit and public debt
Federal Transfers to Provinces
that costs each and every Canadian $4,900, and that costs each and every taxpayer approximately $ 12,500.
What we can and should bring to public attention, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that the Government of Canada is reducing its deficit by withdrawing financial assistance to the provinces to the extent of $5.7 billion in a five-year period. At the same time, the federal government is virtually forcing those provinces to keep and maintain the same level and standard of public services that it has asked and encouraged the provinces to provide for its residents to ensure national standards in health, education and social assistance.
The federal government, having established the level and standard of government services to Canadians, now seeks to abandon part of its financial responsibility for the provision of these services. "Co-operative federalism" is indeed dead in Canada, Mr. Speaker. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made that pronouncement a few weeks ago, he was not really stating a fact but was making the announcement that he and his government had killed "co-operative federalism". It was, in a word, Mr. Speaker, homicide and not suicide. The Prime Minister must take the responsibility for the ultimate result.
This country has grown on the basis of co-operation between the federal government and the provincial governments to achieve programs and services that are available to all Canadians. The statement that co-operative federalism is dead endangers that process and the procedure by which these programs and services were made available to Canadians in the past.
It is essential to underline and clarify the effect of the cutback of $5.7 billion in transfer payments to the provinces.
Faced with a substantial loss in revenue, these provinces have only four alternatives. First, the provinces may use other revenues or untapped sources of revenue to provide for the loss of revenue. An important footnote to that alternative is that most provinces operate on an annual deficit and do not have the resources available to them. Other provinces have virtually exhausted their sources of revenue.
A second alternative would be to reduce or cut back services. We cannot do this in the fields of medical and health care because of the great danger it would pose to the persons who receive benefit from those services. By the same token, the universities, and the students who attend those universities and other post-secondary institutions, would be horrified by the prospect of cutting back services and programs within those institutions.
The third alternative I want to outline is that provinces have the alternative of reducing standards of services. Mr. Speaker, I do not think anyone in this House or any responsible elected official across Canada would favour a reduction in the standard of services, particularly in the health care and educational fields.
The fourth alternative left to the provinces, Mr. Speaker, is to increase taxation. Some provinces, like Nova Scotia and Ontario, are more or less at the end of the line with respect to taxation.

April 5, 1982
Federal Transfers to Provinces
In a moment, Mr. Speaker, I want to provide some information on the extent to which the provinces have exhausted their tax resources. First, I want to say that if none of these alternatives that I have outlined is readily available, medical doctors, hospitals, universities, colleges and other post-secondary institutions are left with resolving the problem within the framework of their own institutions and within the framework of their own practices. They must consider cutting back these services or reducing the standards of those services. In the end, whether it is the provinces that make the decision in terms of cutting back or reducing services, or in terms of imposing taxes, or whether it is the deliverers of those services themselves, the medical doctors, the hospitals, the universities and post-secondary institutions, the public across Canada are affected. It will be the people of Canada that will either bear the increased cost or suffer from the cutbacks and reductions in services. The point is that in the case of the provincial governments which cannot raise revenues or tap sources of revenues, the only alternative left to them in many cases is cutbacks in services or reductions in the standard of those services.
Let me speak now, Mr. Speaker, about provincial taxes and our increase in provincial taxes as a means of making up the deficit which the federal government has imposed on the provinces to the extent of $5.7 billion in the next five years. It has already been reported that many of the provinces simply do not have any further tax base to use. In fact, the survey included with the budget documents which the minister brought to the House of Commons on November 12, 1981, indicated that on a scale of 100, two provinces, Nova Scotia and Ontario, only rank 88; that is to say, they have exhausted their resources and taxation capabilities to that extent. In contrast, the province of Alberta has a score of 192, so it is easy to see that this particular province, in relation to the provinces of Ontario and Nova Scotia, does have some resources which it might apply to make up any deficit in transfer payments.
I might mention for the record, Mr. Speaker, that among the other Atlantic provinces in which I have a particular interest, New Brunswick rated an 89 in relation to the base figure 100, Newfoundland rated 92, and Prince Edward Island, 97. You can see that those provinces have little capability to make up any deficit that results from cutbacks in federal transfer payments.
The other aspect of increasing taxes as a method to meet any shortfall imposed by the Government of Canada is the capability of the taxpayers, residents in each province, to bear additional taxes. I have a report that indicates that today 41 per cent of a family's income is expended for taxes, apart from food and shelter. Those figures indicate, if I were to list them, that among the people of Canada there is very little room left for payment of increased taxes. For instance, the average British Columbia family will earn $29,201 this year and will have to pay $12,114 of that to governments. Income tax is the biggest single item at $4,055. The myriad of other taxes account for the other $8,059. When an average family in British Columbia with an income of $29,201 pays $12,114 in
federal income tax and a myriad of other taxes, we realize that the taxpayers of Canada have pretty well reached their limit.
With rising costs for food, shelter, transportation and other essential services, each day erodes the ability of the Canadian public to put more money into taxes to pay for services they have been receiving in the past. It is not a simple matter, as the Minister of Finance may claim, to allow the federal government to get rid of its deficit by transferring the problem to the provinces and then have the provinces utilize their resources to acquire additional funds to apply to the shortfall. As I have already explained, in the case of most provinces, certainly the Atlantic provinces, that involves increased taxation. There is simply no room for that either in terms of the financial capacity to raise additional taxes or the financial capacity of the people to pay additional taxes.
What the federal government has left us, with its financial policy and the provisions of Bill C-97, is a problem that appears to be insoluble. It can be resolved only by a reduction of services or a change in the standards of those services.
In the debate on Bill C-97 in this House and in the committee which reviewed this bill and heard public representations with respect to its provisions, there has been myriad statistical information and a plethora of financial information. I am not going to add to that.
We have in addition the report of the parliamentary task force on federal-provincial fiscal earnings. It also contains a great deal of information on federal-provincial fiscal arrangements in the past and makes recommendations for the future. My major purpose is to consider the human side of the fiscal reductions proposed by Bill C-97 and to indicate the effect these reductions will have on Canadians.
We have the Canadian dream of equal services across Canada in the essential areas of health, education and social services. Previous Liberal governments, and politicians in this House and elsewhere across this country have attempted to establish national standards in essential services so that as you go from province to province in Canada, each citizen receives the same standard and level of basic services. That dream is in danger today. Once having been established and implemented across this country, the Government of Canada threatens that dream; it threatens to destroy that dream that has become a reality over the past decade.
I want to deal, in this context of the human side and the effect on human beings, with the matter of the equalization payments that are made to those provinces which cannot, according to financial tests, provide services at the level that the richer provinces of Canada are able to do. I also want to talk about health care, including medical and hospital care, and post-secondary education.
First I want to consider why the Government of Canada has taken this drastic action at this stage in our development and is cutting back on the amount of its transfer payments to those provinces which require the payments to provide services.
April 5, 1982

Why, in 1982, does the government see fit to do this in the face of all kinds of economic difficulties and massive unemployment, approaching 1.2 million persons unemployed? In addition, there are 250,000 no longer looking for work. Another
260,000	are employed at jobs much below their level of capability and qualification. Approximately 1.5 million Canadians are employed part-time. When you add all that up, you find almost three million Canadians have an employment problem. There are grave difficulties across the country. This affects the whole fabric of our society. In the face of that, the government has decided to cut back on the payments to provinces used to provide essential services to their citizens.
We must ask ourselves why the Government of Canada is taking this action at this time. I can only answer in this way. There appear to be two developments that have led to the introduction of Bill C-97 and the change of attitude on the part of the Government of Canada respecting financial transfers to the provinces. One development is quite specific. It is the financial plan contained in the budget introduced November 12, 1981. That budget proposed as its main thrust to restrain government spending and reduce the deficit. As a second prong of that thrust, the government purported to apply equity to the tax measures that comprise our tax system. I will talk about that in a moment.
The second development is much more unjustifiable. I refer to the increase in the hostility of the federal government to provincial governments and the complaint by the federal government that it does not receive political credit from the provincial governments for the services it provides and for the financial payments it makes to the provinces to provide other services. That is an important development when you consider that in all ten provinces there does not exist such a thing as a Liberal government. One can easily see why there is this hostility toward the provincial governments.
One wonders why the Government of Canada would take steps to enact measures in this House of Commons through the budget and through Bill C-97 which wreak havoc with those provincial governments in their financial dealings. The reason has been stated by the Secretary of State (Mr. Regan) in public on at least two or three occasions that I am aware of; they are upset about this lack of political credit. The Secretary of State was quoted in the February 22, 1982, edition of the Toronto Star. That newspaper is not known for giving support to the opposition parties in this House of Commons. That newspaper saw fit to report remarks made by the Secretary of State. The article stated, and I quote:
From now on, Ottawa wants to get direct political credit for whatever it spends, whether it's in a federal or provincial jurisdiction, and is prepared to go around the provinces by giving universities or students direct aid, if it can't make a new deal with the provincial governments.
The article also stated:
If the Government of Canada is to remain relevant to the citizens of the country, it must deal more directly with the citizens, or must have the citizens realize what it is doing or how their dollars are being spent and not merely be a banker for the provinces-
That is what the Secretary of State said in an interview with the Toronto Star. The federal government just cannot be a
Federal Transfers to Provinces
banker, it has to get credit. The people of Canada have to know what it is doing with their tax dollars. They have to know it is helping to finance hospital and medical care, and that university students are being assisted by the Government of Canada.
To get that political credit, to get that silly point across to the people of Canada, that is what it is doing. As if Canadians did not know from the payment of their taxes that the government is receiving vast amounts of money! To get that little point across, the federal government is setting about endangering the whole federal-provincial system, merely to gain some credit.
We have these two developments. One is very serious, if misguided, in terms of the budget provisions. The second is the search for political credit which has led to the introduction of Bill C-97 and this change in federal-provincial fiscal relations.
Let me talk briefly about the budget which, as I have indicated, has the intention of reducing the federal deficit and allegedly bringing equity to the tax system. I stated that the Minister of Finance claims to have reduced the federal deficit, but we have already seen, as evidenced by Bill C-97, that all the Minister of Finance has done is taken the $5.7 billion which should have gone to the provinces under the existing cost-sharing and transfer formulae and kept it in the hands of the federal government. He simply grabbed the $5.7 billion which will eventually be applied to the federal deficit through the government's financing process.
That is why the Economic Council of Canada has said that the budget does not, in fact, contain measures which will effectively reduce the deficit and restore faith in the government's financial capability. That is why the Economic Council of Canada has pointed out time and again and confirmed that what is occurring is simply a transfer of the deficit from the federal government to the provincial governments. This cannot be of any possible financial benefit to the people of this nation.
This leads us to examine another justification which was given for the budget. It is that the tax measures were intended to create equity. I will list only a few of those measures. For example, there is the loss of the pension deduction. This has a detrimental effect on senior Canadians who should be given some encouragement to provide for the years when they will not be able to work by saving during their working life. They are being punished for their endeavours by having the pension deduction taken away from them if they receive pension income and continue to work. That is the minister's attitude toward the senior citizens of this country.
Another provision of the budget is to tax health benefit plans which were introduced by employers with the co-operation and consent of employees to ensure the employees receive adequate health services. The Canadian government will now tax the employer's contribution to those programs resulting in the fear that those programs may collapse simply because employees are unwilling to pay tax on dollars that they do not
16156

April 5, 1982
Federal Transfers to Provinces
even receive. Who can blame the seven million employed people across Canada who participate in the health benefit plans but do not receive any money, only to be asked by the federal government to pay tax on the dollars that they do not receive? That is what the Minister of Finance does to the working people of Canada.
There are 13 million Canadians who have life insurance in order to provide for their families in the event of an untimely death or physical disability. With respect to life insurance, the Minister of Finance will tax that desire to protect their families from unfortunate accidents.
Workers' benefits will be taxed in a manner different from that which was applied in the past. Those workers who are employed in northern Canada's frontier or offshore and receive food, clothing and shelter or are provided with transportation in the course of their work will now be taxed on a much stricter basis and will be required to pay more tax. How will that attitude of the government help the development of northern Canada and help Canada grow and develop its resources which have been neglected?
Other Canadians who will be affected are the farmers and fishermen who work all their lives to build up their equity in a farm or a fishing vessel. The only way they can provide for their future is to sell their assets-whether it is a farm or a fishing vessel-and put the money which they receive into an income-averaging annuity to avoid having it taxed at the highest possible rate in the year in which they receive it, so that their future security will not be wiped away. The minister will not allow farmers and fishermen and small businessmen, who have used this device in the past, to use it any longer. He is taking it away. Where is the equity in that?
Those are only some examples which prove the falsehood of the budget. There is the falsehood expressed by Bill C-97 that the government is restraining its expenditures and bringing equity into the tax system. We are left with Bill C-97 and its cutbacks which will affect Canadians for the next five years. Co-operative federalism is indeed dead. It has been killed by this budget and by the Prime Minister, who will not consider the reality that Canadians need services and an effective system to provide financially for those services.
The net result of the budget is that the federal government receives more and the provincial governments receive less. However, the provincial governments are still faced with the necessity of providing essential and necessary services to their citizens. The federal government has abandoned Canadians in all provinces and is not providing the provinces with the financial capability to provide services.
As I have indicated, the Secretary of State supports this legislation in the wake of the failure of the provinces to give political credit to the Government of Canada for the role that it plays. How callous and mean can you get when you are dealing with your own electorate, the people of Canada, who have elected this government? Canadians should be annoyed at how they are being treated. Many Canadians do not understand what is occurring in the House of Commons. They do not always understand the effect of the budget provisions or the effect of a piece of legislation like Bill C-97. That is why
we stand in the House and before committees, like my colleague for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) did, and try to get the message across to the government and Canadians about the harmful effects of these financial measures. That is why we try to prevent the government from hiding behind an alleged policy of fiscal restraint or an alleged policy of equity in its budget measures.
We want to expose the government so that Canadians will be able to judge their elected representatives on both sides of the House and will be able to render judgment when the time comes. In the meantime, we will not listen to the fabrications foisted on the House by the government that it is restraining expenditures and creating equity in the tax system, while at the same time allowing essential services to be provided to Canadians in the same manner as in the past.
We must consider Bill C-97 in the context of the financial situation in Canada. We realize that the government has already spent too much of the taxpayers' money for too long and has piled up deficits which are too high. These deficits are coming back to haunt Canadians and particularly the Government of Canada. We must maintain services which we all regard as essential to all Canadians. I can think of many ways to raise the funds to support those services. All you have to do is look at the $500 million dollar deficit in the Post Office. There are $675 million in debt write-offs for the St. Lawrence Seaway. It is not difficult to find funds that will allow the government to maintain transfer payments at the current level so as to preserve the capability of the provinces to provide these services. Even if the government is not willing to do this for all the provinces which have been receiving transfer payments, at least it can do it in the case of those provinces, such as the maritime provinces, which it knows are unable to provide the financing for these essential services.
Now that the Minister of Finance has entered the chamber, I will remind him that the government of Nova Scotia, for example, already has a deficit of $200 million; Newfoundland has a deficit approaching that amount, as has the government of New Brunswick. In percentage terms, the government of Prince Edward Island has a similar deficit.
1 also want to remind the minister that these provinces are already spending a large amount of their total revenue on social services, education, and health. In Newfoundland, 25 per cent of the provincial revenue is spent on education, 20.6 per cent is spent on health and 17.9 per cent is spent on other social services. Where is that province's capacity to continue to provide services at current levels without help from the federal government? I remind the minister that I have already indicated that the bottom line of this proposal is that $5.7 billion less will be flowing to the provinces, including the Atlantic provinces of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.
In the time I have left I would like to deal with the human side of the four elements which are very much involved in Bill C-97, the proposal we now have before us, with respect to
April 5, 1982

federal fiscal transfers to the provinces. As I have indicated, those four points are equalization, health care, medical care, including hospital care and post-secondary education.
First a word about equalization. Equalization in relation to the concept of regional disparity did not just pop out of thin air. It has been a matter of great concern to people in the Atlantic area for some time as well as people in Manitoba and in some parts of western Canada. That is why, when the government brought forward its proposal of a Charter of Rights and Freedoms for all Canadians, we on the east coast were particularly concerned with the inclusion in that Charter of Rights and Freedoms of a provision respecting equalization. That provision was included in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Section 36. I just want to read Section 36(2) into the record because it states in a few words the concept of equalization. It says:
Parliament and the Government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.
That is what equalization is, and that is what it states in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
What has happened to that concept? What has happened to that provision in the charter in relation to Bill C-97? The Government of Canada has simply determined in advance that all that that provision, which will be enacted as part of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, means is that the level of services which the Government of Canada plans to support once Bill C-97 goes into effect is sufficient for the purposes of the charter.
Citizens and residents of provinces like Nova Scotia wonder what they are getting in this provision respecting equalization. What are we getting? Are we getting anything or are we not? Is there any meaning to it? Does it change anything? What is the point of the provision if the Minister of Finance and his government can simply come along and change the formula and the provisions for equalization, eliminate the revenue guarantee and change the provisions of the established programs financing and say: "There you have it, ladies and gentlemen, that is it; that is all you get; never mind this constitutional provision?"
It seems awfully funny because in recent years we in eastern Canada, and particularly in Nova Scotia, have looked forward to the future with some hope and expectation because we see offshore developments, and we see a changing attitude on the part of the Government of Canada evidenced by its willingness to include in a constitutional proposal and enshrine into law the right of each province to be equal and to have equal benefits in terms of government services. The duty on the part of the Government of Canada is to eliminate regional disparity. When we see that kind of attitude demonstrated in the provisions of Section 36 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and when we see the possibility of development of new resources offshore and new revenues from those resources, we have hope for the future. But then that hope is immediately
Federal Transfers to Provinces
wiped out in a single act; the budget introduced by the Minister of Finance in November of 1981, and now Bill C-97 which claims for the federal government the right to legislate the rules regardless of the constitutional reference to equalization and regional disparity. That is a great and grave disappointment to us.
I want to talk briefly about health services and first about medicare. We in Canada and certainly in this Parliament sometimes have the idea that we are the prime movers in the health care field and that we are way ahead of the rest of the world when it comes to the provision of health services, either in the form of medical care or hospital care to our citizens. That is simply not true. There are many countries in the world which spend greater percentages of their gross national products on health care services than does Canada. In fact, over the past few years many nations have increased their expenditures on health care services at a greater rate than has Canada. We cannot stand still in these fields. We want for Canadians the best possible health care services, and we have to work to provide those services. Even countries which are often thought of as being less fortunate in terms of social and health services than Canada, such as Saudi Arabia, can claim to have health services, and particularly hospital services, of a high calibre and possibly even higher than those in Canada, so we do not want to go to sleep on this development. We do not want to assume that we have achieved a level of excellence and that we can rest for a while, because that is not true at all. Those in this chamber and across Canada who have had to go to the United States, West Germany and other parts of the world for health services will know that while we have done a very good job-and I commend our medical profession and our hospital operators-we still have a long way to go and cannot relax one bit.
With respect to medicare, I was amazed at the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) with respect to income for medical doctors. The idea that a medical doctor is not entitled to an appropriate and proper income for the services he extends is totally ludicrous.


Edward Allan Miller: That is not what he said.


Howard Edward Crosby: If hon. members do not want to accept my word-


Edward Allan Miller: Read the "blues".


Howard Edward Crosby: -they can look at statistics respecting doctors who have left Canada. We have in Canada a medical education system the standards of which, I understand, are very high by world standards. We are very proud of the doctors we educate in Canada, and we are very proud of the fact that they stay in Canada to administer to the needs of Canadians.
However, at the very same time we have to be very concerned about the number of doctors leaving Canada. In 1977, that number was 549; in 1978, 663; and in 1979, 605. With that number of members of the medical profession leaving Canada we know there must be a problem, and we have to ask ourselves what it is. If the problem is a low level of income to

April 5, 1982
Adjournment Motion
those doctors or if the problem is a lack of services and facilities available to them, then we have to work to solve that problem because, as the Minister of Finance and everyone in this chamber knows, we spend vast amounts of money educating doctors in Canada. It would be a terrible thing if we allowed ourselves to lose the benefits provided by those people simply because we did not provide for them adequately in terms of finances.
I understood I had 40 minutes and I am coming to the end of that time, but I just want to say a word about hospital care. Again, failure to finance hospital care properly will result in dangers to the health of Canadians. We do not want that. What we have to do in the case both of hospital care and medical care is establish what the standard of service ought to be for all Canadians and, having established that standard, we have to be prepared to pay for it. It is as simple as that and there is no way around it. We have to establish the standard of care and then find the means to pay for it. We cannot blame doctors. We cannot blame hospital authorities. We simply have to deal with the realities of the problem.
Let me talk about post-secondary education in the two minutes I have left. Let us think of the students across Canada whose careers will be in jeopardy if we do not find funds to finance post-secondary education. Again, we have to view the cutbacks with that in mind.
The time has come to face up to the realities of the situation and to find the funds for essential services so that we can help and benefit all Canadians.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Before I recognize the next hon. member, in this case the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), 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 La Prairie (Mr. Deniger)-International Maritime Transport- Levying of tax on world prices; the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga)-Administration of Justice-Allegations concerning production of documents; the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby)-Public Service-Action taken against employee of Department of Manpower and Immigration. (b) Application of Charter of Rights.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Ouellet (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance) 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 read the third time and do pass.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I understand it is customary to seek the unanimous consent of the House at third reading for the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) to speak. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald W. Munro: Is he going to close debate?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I assume in seeking unanimous consent that that would, of course, not close debate.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Will the minister have another chance to close the debate as well?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: First, the same hon. member cannot speak twice on the same bill and, second, there is no closing of debate at third reading in any event.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, thank you for permitting me to participate in the third reading debate on Bill C-97. At this final stage I should like to comment on a number of the points made in the course of the debate and to give my views on a number of concerns raised by hon. members.
First of all, there has been some comment about the length of time allotted to deal with the issues in this particular bill. There has been, however, a good deal more involvement and understanding by members of this House in this debate on fiscal arrangements than there has ever been in the past. This is due, at least in part, to the establishment of the parliamentary task force which has proved to be a major step forward for parliamentary interest in, and parliamentary influence over, federal-provincial fiscal arrangements. Without the work done by the parliamentary task force there would not have been as great an understanding of the issues debated at second reading and in committee. The total debate would not have been as productive. I think all members who participated in the task force headed by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) have acknowledged the value of their involvement.
April 5, 1982

The report of the task force comments on the result of the exercise as follows:
[It] marks the first occasion on which public consultation, and active parliamentary involvement, have been possible during the process of reviewing and renegotiating the central features of fiscal federalism in Canada.
1 should certainly like to thank members of the parliamentary task force from all parties for their valuable contribution. I should also like to thank members who participated in the debate at second reading, at committee stage and at third reading.
1 have noted with satisfaction the general approval given by members of all parties to most elements of the bill. They have not approved all elements, but a substantial number of the important elements have been endorsed. I am pleased to note also the support which has been given to the government's proposals for a new equalization system. This is a program which we all agree is of the utmost importance to our federation.
I am pleased there has been considerable support for the equalization formula given by provincial governments. It has not been possible in every case to meet the concerns of all provincial governments, but I believe that most equalizationreceiving provinces would acknowledge that their views have been listened to on quite a number of important aspects.
I am also pleased to note the support for the continuation and improvement of our fiscal stabilization program. In addition, support has been expressed for the proposal to make over $200 million in payments to fiscally disadvantaged provinces in order to offset the effects of the recoveries of equalization arising from the 1981 census. In that connection I should mention the discussions I had with the representatives of the Atlantic provinces and the province of Manitoba. Certainly in the case of the Atlantic provinces, the arrangement entered into has been of direct benefit. The ministers of the provinces, including the Premier of New Brunswick, have expressed their appreciation of the efforts made to accommodate them in this respect.
Approval has also been given to the proposal to accelerate payments to oil-producing provinces of their share of the federal oil export charge.
There have been criticisms of the bill, of course. Most of these have been directed to the established programs financing provisions. Before I deal with those criticisms, I should like to deal with the case of the province of Manitoba and indicate why it was not possible to accept the proposal to base Manitoba's equalization entitlement on the entitlement of the province with the second lowest rate of growth. Acceptance of this proposal would have meant that the entitlement of one province would have been based upon that of another. The whole idea behind equalization is that it be based upon each province's measure of fiscal capacity. It does not make sense to provide that it could be based upon the fiscal capacity of another province. That has never been the case. If that proposal were adopted, it would go a long way to weakening-I will not say undermining, but to weakening-the credibility of the equalization program. It would be extremely arbitrary.
Federal Transfers to Provinces
We recognized that Manitoba did have a concern and a problem and that what was needed was an arrangement which would protect a province such as Manitoba which would be adversely affected by the change from one equalization system to another. If no steps had been taken to accommodate the concerns of Manitoba, they would have been a drop in the entitlement of Manitoba in the first year of the new five-year period. I believe it would have dropped by 10 per cent over the preceding year. However, on the base of the first year of the new period, its entitlements would have increased in accordance with the more or less general level of increase applicable to all other provinces.
To meet this particular transitional problem we proposed an arrangement with a substantial cost of $165 million over the three years in so far as the province of Manitoba is concerned. This is a very generous provision and is unprecedented in the history of the program. I believe this provision is adequate to meet the circumstances.
Hon. members are aware that the purpose of equalization is to increase the revenue-raising capacity of equalizationreceiving provinces up to the prescribed standard level. We select a standard which we think is fair and adequate and then bring disadvantaged provinces up to that level. The effect of the proposed transitional measure put forward by the government will be that for a period of three years Manitoba's per capita fiscal capacity will be raised to a level higher than that of any of the other provinces that receive equalization. Indeed, in 1982-83 and in 1983-84, Manitoba's fiscal capacity after equalization will be even higher than that of Ontario.
I know that an amendment has been seriously proposed by two members of the House of Commons which would have raised Manitoba's fiscal capacity above that of Ontario for all five years of the new arrangement, even though Ontario would receive no equalization payment. In my view, that would have created real difficulties. It would have been unacceptable from an equalization point of view. The amendment was not acceptable because it was quite costly, but also because it did not make sense in terms of an equalization program which is intended to deal with the fiscal capacity of various provinces. That is my comment about the Manitoba case.
In addition to the recovery provision amounting to $30 million in the case of Manitoba, we have provided a transitional arrangement costing an additional $165 million. In any equalization program, if fiscal capacity related to a standard is to be the guide, provinces will vary in their entitlements. Otherwise it does not make sense as an equalization system.
It is worth recalling, because one does not want a residue of bitterness to prevail, that when we started the last period of equalization the entitlements of the province of Manitoba in comparison with those of the Atlantic provinces were much greater; the percentage rate of growth was more rapid. It is the opposite this time because of the operation of the standard and the fiscal capacity of Manitoba. As the fiscal capacity of a province increases, its entitlements will decrease. The closer a province gets to the standard, the less entitlement it will have;

April 5, 1982
Federal Transfers to Provinces
that is the general system. We have attempted to help Manitoba as a result of discussions which my officials and I have had with the minister of finance.
It has also been suggested in the course of the debate on this bill that the five-province standard proposed for the new equalization formula is inadequate because, "there is no evidence that the five provinces now selected ... are appropriate provinces for a mean average of Canada." I should like to remind hon. members that the five provinces in question, namely Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia and Saskatchewan, account for over 80 per cent of the total provincial population. Moreover, Alberta, which is the largest of the provinces excluded from the standard, certainly cannot be considered as more representative of all provinces than any of the five standard provinces taken individually. Its resource revenues are such that it enjoys a unique position among our ten provinces. As for the four Atlantic provinces excluded from the standard, it should be noted that their inclusion would result in a lower standard than that provided for in the bill.
I will not digress and reflect upon the initial proposal to bring all provinces up to the Ontario standard. I thought that was a good standard. I thought we were hitching the destiny of equalization-receiving provinces to an admirable standard provided by the province of Ontario. But others did not have the confidence in the stability of that province that I had.
Therefore, I moved to a five-province standard which in the view of provincial spokesmen-and their views ought to be respected-would be more stable over the long term. This is why we moved from the Ontario standard to the five-province standard. I must say that almost all equalization-receiving provinces regard the five-province standard as better than the Ontario standard, although I am sure all of them would wish to have kept the pre-existing equalization formula, which in the circumstances was not possible.
Let me say a word on established programs financing, the part of the bill which has been attacked by hon. members of the opposition. Given the quantity of inaccurate information and improbable argument which we have heard in the debate, it seems useful to start with a brief summary of what Bill C-97 proposes to do about established programs financing.
It is not very complicated; there are only two clauses involved. Clause 6 indicates that the total entitlement will be paid as a cash contribution and an equalized tax transfer. That clause goes on to set out the total entitlement of a province as the per capita federal contribution in respect of hospital insurance, medicare and post-secondary education under the cost-sharing arrangements in 1975-76, multiplied by the current year provincial population, and increased by the growth in the Canadian economy. Thus, the total entitlement of a province is based upon the actual experience of 1975-76, escalated by the growth of the Canadian economy. It is worth stressing that federal contributions in 1975-76 represented 100 per cent of the federal contributions under these programs. If 100 per cent of the federal contribution is escalated each year by the growth of the economy, we have a pretty solid base, and the contribution will grow in the future on that solid base.
I have not heard anyone in the opposition criticize any of these elements. Federal contributions under cost-sharing were based upon what it cost to run health insurance and postsecondary education. When the switch was made five years ago from a cost-sharing formula to a block-funding approach, it seemed a fair basis-it still is. Current entitlements, which will go from 1982-83 onward, will start from that base and grow with the population. This is not an unreasonable approach since both health and educational services are supplied to people, people are the population, and the base grows with the population.
Finally, it seems reasonable to assume that federal contributions to these programs should grow in line with the growth of prices and incomes in the country. Using an escalator based upon the gross national product would appear to accomplish this. If all three parts of the total entitlement appear reasonable, it is hard to understand why combining them creates such criticism.
What would opposition members have us do at a time when restraint in federal expenditure is necessary? Is it argued that we should continue a transfer-and this is what it is all about-originally designed to guarantee provincial income tax receipts during implementation of a tax reform ten years ago, the short-term revenue impact of which was difficult to predict? Since the tax change took place ten years ago, the necessary adjustment period must surely be over by now. Is it really necessary to continue, not even the adjustment payment, but a payment designed to cushion the reduction in provincial cash flows which its termination involved? This is the compensation for the termination of the revenue guarantee. A system which is based solidly upon the actual cost experience of 197576, which grows with the population and with the gross national economy, is a very fair way for the Government of Canada to support post-secondary education and health care.
A number of opposition speakers-I gather even today- claim that the cuts are not in transfers to provinces but in transfers to hospitals and universities. They claim the revenue guarantee, which is to be eliminated, was a payment to the hospitals and universities. Well, if that is the case I would like to see the evidence, because it has yet to be produced. The estimates we have produced, which are not disputed, show regular increases in entitlements and transfers. Over the next five years these transfers will increase, as I told the committee, at 12 per cent to 13 per cent-[DOT]


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Cash payments will go down.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -built upon the base of actual experience in 1975-76. If you want to talk about hospitals and universities, I suspect that many of their treasurers would be very pleased if the funds that provinces make available to them had grown as fast as federal contributions to the provinces. They would be even happier if there were a commitment that provincial contributions would grow as fast in the future as our
April 5, 1982

established programs financing payments to the provinces would under the provisions of Bill C-97. Is there a commitment from the provinces that they will increase their support to post-secondary education and health the way we will in the next five years? I have not heard any such commitment, and I think we should not pin the Government of Canada with the responsibility-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Oh, indeed we will.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -for any alleged reduction or future reduction in the share of funding for these purposes.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The provinces are cutting back.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the problems that the opposition complain about so loudly-that is, reduced funding for health and education, increased charges and falling standards-simply cannot be laid on the doorstep of the Government of Canada. Nor can they, under current arrangements, be resolved by the Government of Canada alone.
Having said that, the concerns raised are obviously illegitimate. The standards of health care and post-secondary education in Canada are of concern to all hon. members, and they should continue to be. However, the problems arising from these concerns are in fact the sort of issues that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) and the Secretary of State (Mr. Regan) hope to redress in their discussions with provincial health and education ministers. The two federal ministers want to be able to assure us, as the task force said they should, that the money voted in this House for health and post-secondary education, and the associated tax revenue we have given up to the provinces, is in fact spent on these services. That is what the task forced asked us to do.


Mr. Blenkarn:: They also asked you not to cut it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Those ministers would like to have some input into the planning of progams so that they will reflect, and adjust to, the changing needs of the Canadian economy. It is a fact that we believe our national university system should respond to the needs of our society and our economy. But there is no opportunity, nor has there been in recent years, for any federal minister to participate in any discussions at the council of ministers on these subjects, even though it was clearly understood that this would result from the 1977 negotiations. Provincial ministers have not been prepared to discuss and negotiate our legitimate national concerns about health and education programs.
There is more to this business than money. Money is important, but there is also the necessity for this House to have some assurance that the moneys voted for these purposes are spent on these purposes, and that the universities, which are national institutions, do so. If I may say so personally, it has been a regret of mine that in recent years the universities have appeared more and more to be provincially oriented and drawn more into local and provincial concerns rather than national concerns. To me that would be a rather deplorable development if it continued.
Federal Transfers to Provinces
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to stress that the interpretation which several members of the opposition have given of the revenue guarantee compensation element of the established programs financing is completely at odds with what the provinces have been saying.


An hon. Member:: It is not at odds with what you were saying.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In the standing committee and in this House members have argued that the revenue guarantee is an integral part of program spending. It is rather odd, Mr. Speaker, that provincial ministers certainly did not push that point very far in our meetings leading up to this bill. Obviously they wanted to continue the revenue guarantee, but they did not push the argument as strongly as the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald)-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Based on Don Macdonald's statements.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -that the revenue guarantee was part of programs financing. They did not press it for very good reasons, because they have traditionally maintained that the revenue guarantee should not be considered as a program transfer.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Right on.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is what they have done. At the Premiers' meeting, in Victoria I believe it was, last August, there was issued a joint communique. There was an opportunity for the premiers of the ten provinces to tell us what they thought about the revenue guarantee. They listed the contributions coming from the Government of Canada to these programs and deliberately omitted and ignored the revenue guarantee. So when the provinces cannot make the case, when the provinces drop it as a case, when the premiers omit it from federal contributions, why do members opposite persist in trying to be more heroic than even the provincial finance ministers have been?
There has also been the suggestion that we just roll over the EPF for a couple of years. The provinces have made that point several times, and it would be very nice if one could just say we will forget about restraint for a couple of years and roll it over. They made that pitch from the beginning; I believe it was something that could not be accepted. The amendment proposed for the roll over would cost the federal treasury $1.7 billion over the next two years. They were asking me on Thursday to send $1.7 billion more to the provinces over the next two years when we in this Parliament are attempting to exhibit restraint. I find it very odd that members of the opposition, especially the official opposition-who daily berate the Minister of Finance, who daily demand reductions in the deficit-can come joyously on a Thursday afternoon and toss off $1.7 billion without thinking about it, or without relating it to what the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) and the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) have said, those stern disciplinarians of the federal treasury. But they have let the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands

April 5, 1982
Federal Transfers to Provinces
have her way, and become the bountiful provider of $1.7 billion, not to spend on universities-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: You bet!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -not to spend on post-secondary education. If that were the case, one would have some sympathy, but why spend money on an object which the premiers themselves have said is not part of payments for post-secondary education?
Now, may I turn for a moment to-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: You would have to get off that one, fast!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Well, Mr. Speaker, I like that subject, because hon. members of the opposition are pushing a case which the provinces have not pushed very hard because they know the facts. However, I want to say a word-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Not like Flora.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Or Don Macdonald.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -about the population recovery adjustment payments with which I dealt in Part II of the bill. It has been stated that the provisions pertaining to these payments are unfair because they would preclude the possibility of Saskatchewan receiving payments, although that province will be subject to recoverance. I would like to deal with that because, here again, it is important to make it clear that provinces have been fairly treated.
Why did we bring recovery adjustment payments into the bill? We brought them into the bill because of the financial hardship which would be imposed upon the provinces if we did now what has always been the case; namely, if we went ahead with these recoveries. For example, the finance minister of Newfoundland who, I believe, was faced with recoveries of $60 million to $70 million, would certainly find his budget damaged if we insisted on these recoveries. It was in response to that kind of attitude expressed by him, Premier Hatfield, Mr. Matheson, Mr. MacPhail and Mr. Schroeder, that the effect on their budgets was considered and this provision was included.
The population recovery adjustment payments are designed to ease the financial situation of provinces which meet two criteria. First, they must be subject to population related recoveries of part of the equalization paid to them for fiscal years 1980-81 and 1981-82 as a consequence of new population data contained in the June, 1981, census. Second, they must have below standard fiscal capacity in 1982-1983, an indication that normal recovery procedures would strain their financial situation at the time the recovery would commence. The province of Saskatchewan meets the first requirement but not the second. Indeed, recent calculations based upon the new and improved measure of fiscal capacity, which would underline equalization calculations for the next five years, indicate that Saskatchewan at present has a fiscal capacity which is
quite comparable to that of British Columbia and which is exceeded only by Alberta.
One reason for Saskatchewan's very high capacity is contained in this very bill. Section 10 of the bill provides for the payment of $273 million of shared federal revenues to Saskatchewan in respect of the oil export charge. That is a very large sum for a province of less than one million people. I am glad that it is benefiting from its resources. This is a new source of revenue for Saskatchewan which will buttress existing revenues from royalties to oil, potash, uranium and other minerals from its rich agricultural-based economy.
I should add in passing that a perusal of the budget tabled by the Saskatchewan minister of finance on March 18 gives no indication that population related recoveries of equalization would strain the public finances of that province. That is why a provision has not been put in the bill in the case of Saskatchewan. It is because its fiscal capacity is such that the recoveries would not strain its public finances.
I know that hon. members have been proposing amendments. It has not been possible to accept these amendments because we are attempting to follow a certain strategy of fiscal restraint. We cannot respond to all the requirements of the provinces. However, we do believe that we have provided for an equitable system. We have provided that the payments under the established programs financing for those vital programs for the Canadian people will grow over the next five years at an average rate of 12 per cent to 13 per cent. In this bill, we have enshrined a system of equalization which, I believe, carries the support of most of the equalization receiving provinces.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Down 4.6 per cent next year!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Therefore, I am pleased to have been able to participate in this important enterprise. I hope that Bill C-97 will become the law of Canada in time to make the payments to the provinces before they have to re-adjust their budgets as a result of not having these payments at their disposal.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Now explain it to the students.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Thank you for staying, Flora.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) has a minute or two, I wonder if he could perhaps answer a question. Is the minister aware that the figures from the ministry of health relating to all health matters indicate that the federal government at present spends only 47 per cent of the cost, and that with the current reduction of $35 per capita to the provinces by transfer, the federal share of health expenditures will very dramatically decline from 47 per cent to the neighbourhood of 42 per cent or 43 per cent?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the very eloquent and convincing testimony which was given to the committee by the Minister of National Health and Welfare
April 5, 1982

who testified that the removal of the revenue guarantee would not impair the support we have been giving to health and postsecondary education and that it would not impair those obligations we have assumed, which were based on actual cost experience in 1975-1976.


Mr. Thacker:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. minister would expand just a little further on the point he made that he had to cut back because provinces were not providing the service through the EPF, particularly at the university level. 1 heard the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) make the comment that that was particularly true of Quebec. Many of us have always felt that people in the Atlantic provinces have spent a lot of money educating young people who then came to central Canada, Upper Canada and western Canada. Therefore, what evidence does he have that the comments of the Minister of Justice are correct with regard to areas outside of the province of Quebec that the universities have not been providing an education which has benefited people across the whole country?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, what I was saying-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It's not what you meant.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and I think I ought to clear it up, is that in so far as operating expenditures in the field of post-secondary education are concerned, in many cases the Government of Canada is providing more than 50 per cent of the operating expenses. In one university, in one province, it is providing 120 per cent of the operating expenses.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That's not what he's asking.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is the purpose of our support for post-secondary education.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That's not what he's asking.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member now asks me what evidence I have to support belief that universities do not have the national orientation which we would like them to have. Let me put it another way. He was asking me why 1 am concerned that the Government of Canada, through the Secretary of State, for example, has had no opportunity to discuss with the provinces national goals with respect to post-secondary education.
One evidence is objective, namely, that in recent years it has not been possible for a federal minister to sit down with the council of ministers representing all the provincial governments to discuss this whole field-not in recent years. That was discussed at the first ministers' conference, even though when the last negotiations took place it was understood that the federal government would have an input. So that is objective evidence.
If you want to know my subjective attitude, it is that one of the most valuable assets this country has is the university
Federal Transfers to Provinces
community from coast to coast. They have a very rich contribution to make. I believe that in order to make that rich contribution they must take a national orientation. It is my regret that too frequently they are taking a provincial orientation, and that is understandable in the circumstances because the Government of Canada is virtually excluded from discussions with respect to the goal of post-secondary education.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) cited the arguments of the provinces, that they did not regard the money attributable to the compensation for termination of the revenue guarantee as money for health care and post-secondary education. I wonder if the Minister could tell us whether he had always agreed with that position or whether at any time he had disagreed with it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It was my obligation, Mr. Speaker, when I began the negotiations with the provinces, to examine the evidence that was available as to the role of the revenue guarantee. I do not believe that I had passionate views on the revenue guarantee before I began these negotiations.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Do you have passionate views on anything?


An hon. Member:: What about you?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: When I acquired all the information, I concluded that there was a very strong case to be made that the revenue guarantee was not a program-related contribution. I doubt if I am on the record earlier than this on the revenue guarantee.


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: I listened with a good deal of interest and hope, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) when he was speaking, because coming from the province of Manitoba, of course, we as Members of Parliament feel that the people of Manitoba have more than a passing interest in the legislation that we are dealing with at the present time.
I am disappointed that the Minister of Finance really has not said anything new in the way of alleviating the problem that concerns the people of Manitoba.
The minister, at the conclusion of his speech, said that he hoped that this bill would pass and he was sure the provinces would agree with him. But let us take the situation that you were living in the province of Manitoba and had, over roughly a five-year period, a shortfall in revenues going into a particular area of close to $600 million. That money would have to be made up from somewhere else.
If we are looking at a recession period in terms of the economy not being good, I do not think you would need to be any kind of a financial or constitutional or federal-provincial expert to know that a province such as Manitoba would be adversely affected and very seriously affected in the quality possible in health care over the next number of years. Quite certainly a potential is there at least to cause the quality to deteriorate significantly.

April 5, 1982
Federal Transfers to Provinces
The situation is felt with such intensity in the province of Manitoba that the opposition literally has joined forces in terms of opposing and trying to put forward a positive voice and a positive position to the Minister of Finance. As far as the Manitoba Members of Parliament are concerned, one has to question the strength of the argument, or whether there was an argument at all. The hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Bockstael) and also the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), were trying to convince the minister, the parliamentary secretary and the finance officials, of what will become a growing need over the next number of years for money going into a province such as Manitoba for health and post-secondary education.
I am not going to speak for a great length of time, Mr. Speaker, because like many others in this chamber I am not an expert in this particular area. I know one thing, Mr. Speaker, I know that when you are short of a substantial amount of money, especially in an important area like health care, there will be problems. That is the kind of thing that concerned and disappointed us because the Minister of Finance did not come in with something he could have done, that is, basically, an amendment to allay the fears of particular provinces such as Manitoba.
I do not often quote a provincial minister of Finance. I cannot ever remember quoting a provincial New Democratic Party finance minister in the House of Commons. The minister of finance for the province of Manitoba has, I believe, made some pretty substantial representations to the government in Ottawa. He has put the point forward in a very responsive and straightforward manner when he commented on the whole question of the five-province standard and the so-called representative average standard toward which the government is moving. He made a point-and I think it should be made again here in this House-that it is inconsistent with the equalization principle, which is really soon to become a permanent part of the Constitution. The Constitution resolution is being put into force, I assume, and we will have a chance to take part in the ceremonies a few days from now. The Constitution resolution talks about the whole question of equalization, and says:
Parliament and the Government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of taxation.
That is not going to take place, under this legislation, for some provinces. For example, under Bill C-97 the impact on the provinces between 1982-83 to 1986-87 will be negative, and in the case of Manitoba, it will lose close to $3,000 per family, or $2,786 to be exact. That money has to be made up somewhere, or else the standards will drop. It is as simple as that.
That is the whole essence of the disappointment I feel this afternoon in listening to the Minister of Finance, hoping he would have an amendment or would be more constructive, rather than saying something that most of us in the House have known for a long time. Certainly the government of Manitoba has already included the figures that he put into his statement this afternoon, and have already put into their
projections the shortfall that the government of the province of Manitoba is going to incur. That shortfall will be substantially higher than that of most other provinces. In fact, this $2,700 figure, close to $3,000, that I mentioned earlier, will be five times the average cost for the have provinces and will be 50 per cent higher than the average for the have-not provinces. With 4.2 per cent of the national population and 3.7 per cent of the national output, Manitoba will bear about 10.2 per cent of the net cost of the federal cutbacks. I cannot reinforce enough the fact that this is not fair. The have-not provinces bear about 71.6 per cent of the cutbacks, compared with 43.5 per cent of the population, and 36 per cent of the national output. In contrast, the have provinces bear about 20 per cent of the cutbacks, compared with 50 per cent of the population, and 63 per cent of the national output. It does not make sense. That is not equalization. It is not fair.
Over the next five years, the percentage shares of the equalization payments to Manitoba will plunge by 1.7 per cent. Under the expiring agreement, they would have increased by 1.9 per cent. Obviously those of us who are from the province of Manitoba would like all that we could obtain from the federal government. But surely there must be a happy medium. There must be a meeting area between what members of Parliament representing constituents of Manitoba would like and what the federal government is doing at the present time. The federal government has not found any middle of the road solution in terms of the cost-sharing part of this legislation.
The minister and members of this House know that the very provinces which have little financial room to manoeuvre are receiving the biggest federal cutbacks. That is one of the great problems of Manitoba and of some of the maritime provinces. The economic indicator figures from 1976 to 1981 show Manitoba as the lowest of any province in all three categories of domestic production, employment and investment growth, yet Manitoba is allocated a projected equalization growth rate only slightly more than half the national average. It is 3.27 per cent compared to 6.98 per cent.
Even with those figures, we were not able to convince the federal government to loosen the purse strings and to look at the situation in a more realistic manner. Manitoba simply does not have the resources to absorb a financial blow of this magnitude without the detrimental impact being felt at some time by every resident of Manitoba, whether it is in the north, in Flin Flon, Churchill, The Pas or Thompson, the central part of the province, the southern part, Winnipeg or Brandon. The impact will be felt and will increase over the length of time that this legislation continues to be in effect.
Manitoba just does not have the financial capability to sustain that kind of financial blow which the federal government is trying to impose upon it. Such action by the federal government simply does not make sense. Under the cutbacks, the provinces with the greatest need for development of their
April 5, 1982

economic activity are being rendered the most incapable of generating a particular capability because of what is happening with this bill.
During the five year lifetime of the act, the federal cutback of funds to Manitoba will amount to about $719 million. 1 repeat, the cost will be about $2,800 per family of four. I stress again that this comes at a time of recession, of present and presumably continuing high interest rates, of poor export markets, and at a time when not only Manitoba but all provinces are experiencing a greater number of business bankruptcies than we have seen for a long time.
Manitobans simply cannot afford to pay increased provincial taxes to cover the federal government's shortfall. The money simply is not there. The economic activity is not there.
This situation not only exists in Manitoba but across the country, in some provinces it is to a lesser extent and in others to a greater extent. In the case of the maritime provinces, the situation is more dramatic. These proposals will implement a dramatic decline in real terms of federal support for the basic programs throughout Canada. I do not believe that this act is a product of a substantiated policy.
It appears from discussions with the Minister of Finance, the Manitoba minister of finance and some officials that the policy was not thought out. As I mentioned before, there should be a way for the government and members of the House from Manitoba to find an area between what is proposed in this bill and what is wanted in order to maintain the kind of health and educational standards Manitobans are entitled to. There should be a year in which to make a tradeoff. Obviously that was not to be.
With the federal government pulling back in terms of health care and education, there is the danger of a checkerboard system in this country for health and medical care and education. The possibility exists where the wealthier provinces will benefit. Obviously the western provinces other than Manitoba could have a more sophisticated and up to date health care facility in relation to research, infrastructure and technology than does Manitoba and some of the maritime provinces.
When one looks at the whole program, not only in terms of health care, one wonders why the government went in the direction it did. Virtually every group has been opposed to this part of the bill, including the parliamentary task force on federal-provincial fiscal arrangements. The Economic Council of Canada did not have much to say that was positive about the method or the direction in which the government is going. The Canadian Council on Social Development, the Business Council on National Issues and most other groups in this country are concerned about the direction in which the government is going. They are concerned about the situation developing-a patchwork situation-with some provinces having better medical components than others.
Federal Transfers to Provinces
Finally, we are disappointed that the Minister of Finance did not see fit to address some problems which are going to be very real in this country for years to come.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: For the sake of the following occupant of the chair, may I ask whether it is the intention of the hon. member to continue his remarks at eight o'clock, or has he concluded his remarks?


Jack Burnett Murta: I have concluded, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on 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 you will know from having heard the debate up to the present time, the bill is intended to carry out a number of functions. Its primary purpose is to extend for another five years programs in an act under which major federal-provincial transfer payments are made-specifically the established programs financing plan and the equalization program. The EPF will be amended by terminating its revenue guarantee component and thereby substantially reducing the federal contribution under established programs financing over the next five years.
On the question of equalization, a different formula is being introduced to replace that which has been in place since 1977.
I wish to focus my remarks on the EPF and equalization-related provisions in the context of the Atlantic provinces in general and of my own province of Prince Edward Island in particular. I would like to begin by discussing the established programs financing plan. I have been keenly interested for some time now in this whole issue dealing with arrangements under established programs financing for the financing of postsecondary education, medicare and hospitilization, but my interest was sharpened greatly when the government signalled in its October 28, 1980, budget that it intended to realize substantial net savings in the social development envelope.
Let me quote from that budget, which was a little less infamous, and perhaps a little less offensive, than the recent one. It was stated in the October 1980 budget that:
The government intends to achieve net savings in this area-
That is the social development envelope.
-to help finance initiatives in other envelopes. Because of the statutory nature of much of the spending in this envelope, savings are not assumed to begin until 1982-83. Savings are expected to include reductions in federal transfers to provinces relating to areas coming under provincial jurisdiction. In part, savings may be redeployed within the envelope.

April 5, 1982
Federal Transfers to Provinces
The reason why I quoted that statement from the budget is that it was the first real signal of the federal government's intentions which have been expressed in the bill we are debating tonight. The cat was partially let out of the bag with the October 28, 1980, budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). If the cat was let out of the bag a little bit in October, 1980, the cat was swiftly kicked out of the bag as a result of a statement made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) during an interview with the CBC on November 8, 1980, just a few days after the minister brought down his budget. In that interview, the Minister of National Health and Welfare made it clear that the cutbacks to which reference was made in the budget would not be in the health care area. She made it very clear by implication that the federal government's net savings in the social development envelope would be achieved at the expense of the other part of the established programs financing package, namely postsecondary education. The educational system in Canada, especially the post-secondary educational system, is an easy target and a convenient whipping boy for any government which wants to cut expenditures without incurring the wrath of the Canadian public. By its very nature, the Canadian higher education system has too often been docile. Consequently, the Minister of Finance obviously thought that he could slash federal expenditures in that area, where there would not be enormous organized opposition. Of course, health care was not to be spared. But, the fact is that it was in the education area, according to the minister of health, where the government expected to achieve most of its savings. Unfortunately, people's worst suspicions have been realized in Bill C-97.
Let us look for a moment at the established programs financing provisions in the bill. EPF is a major federal-provincial transfer payments program. It is designed to provide funding from the federal treasury for post-secondary education, hospitalization and medicare. The existing EPF arrangements, which are now coming to an end, were set in place in April of 1977. Annual block payments were made to each of the provinces from the federal treasury. Half were in the form of tax transfers; there were various arrangements between the federal government and the provinces in taxation, whereby the federal government created a little room for the provinces to raise money for EPF purposes. The other half under EPF was in the form of cash. Under the 1977 program, which has continued to the present, no conditions were attached to the money intended for post-secondary education. About a third of the government's EPF money was earmarked for post-secondary education. There was, however, no obligation on the part of the provinces to spend the money for post-secondary education, once it was received by the provinces from the federal government. In other words, there was merely an understanding that it would be spent on education.
I have no doubt that the federal government-and to this extent I will give it its due-is right when it argues that the total federal share of the cost of post-secondary education in Canada has increased markedly since 1977. For example, in 1977-78, the federal share was 65 per cent of total provincial expenditures for universities. In 1980-81, this figure had
increased to 76 per cent. The federal government may well have a case-I suspect it does-for saying it is paying a disproportionate share of the total cost of post-secondary education in Canada. The government is probably also right when it argues it is not getting its fair share of the credit for these expenditures. The provinces are doling out the money, having received much of it from the federal treasury. The people, the electorate, see the provinces on the front line and the federal government taking a back seat when it comes to the allocation of political credit. Finally, the federal government is probably right when it argues that it is having too little direct say in how those expenditures are actually made.
However, having conceded those points, I think it is just not good enough to argue on the basis of them that we need a whole new federal-provincial fiscal transfer arrangement of the kind contemplated in Bill C-97. There are legitimate national concerns about post-secondary education. One is that there be maximum accessibility. There is a legitimate national concern about bilingualism. There is a legitimate concern about Canadian studies, manpower planning and research and development. Of course the federal government has a legitimate role to play in the financing of post-secondary education, even though education technically resides within the jurisdiction of the provinces. Such considerations, however, are hardly a justification for the fundamental way in which the government is trying to alter the funding system under Bill C-97.
Of particular concern to me and my colleagues is the planned elimination of the revenue guarantee. The revenue guarantee was a means of compensating the provinces for revenue lost following the 1972 federal tax reforms. Those reforms, after the Carter royal commission reported, would have had the effect of reducing provincial revenues, unless certain compensating provisions were made. So in 1972 the revenue guarantee was instituted, and then in 1977 it became part of the established programs financing parcel. The revenue guarantee was unconditional in the eyes of the provinces. The money was to go into the consolidated revenues of the provinces to support all their programs, and not just higher education, medicare and hospitalization. It was to support all programs right across the board. However, even though that was true, the provinces would never have agreed to the 1977 established programs financing formula in the absence of the revenue guarantee. So the two are very much an integral part of one another. In that sense they are inseparable. But now the federal government, through Bill C-97, is seeking to separate the inseparable. The revenue guarantee is to be abolished. Future contributions by the federal government to or established programs financing are to be calculated without any reference to the revenue guarantee. The result will be a substantial reduction in the total capacity of the provinces to fund health and education.
In this House, and outside the House in forums across the land, the Minister of Finance insists that federal contributions to EPF programs will increase. He has told me, in response to at least five questions on the floor of the House of Commons in
April 5, 1982

the Oral Question Period, that the federal contribution to EPF will increase about 12 per cent per year. He is right if he ignores the revenue guarantee. But, reading between the lines, we find that what he is actually saying is that he will increase funding 12 per cent per year on a much narrower base, the base being shorn of the revenue guarantee, which again was really integral to the established programs financing. The minister is completely ignoring this point. The Minister of Finance is deceiving the Canadian people. I am not saying that is necessarily the result of chicanery. The effect, however, is that the Canadian people are being misled on this important point. There will be a 12 per cent increase per year, or in that neighbourhood, in established programs financing but on a much smaller foundation. The minister's calculations are based strictly on program-directed grants, ignoring totally the sister transfer arrangement, the revenue guarantee. Over the next five years, the federal government will slash EPF by $5.7 billion because of the elimination of the revenue guarantee. In 1982-83, federal savings will be $915 million. That is taking into account the program directed part of established programs financing. When we take into account planned increases for established programs financing per se, together with the elimination of revenue guarantee, the actual cash payments to the provinces under EPF in 1982-83 will be some $400 million less than in 1981-82.
When the budget of November 12 was brought down, the Minister of Finance said that those reductions would be offset partially by increased provincial revenues contemplated by the tax measures in the budget. He predicted a net loss of $1.9 billion over five years. Well, Sir, on November 23, just 11 days after the minister brought his budget down, he had to revise his calculations. He admitted an administrative error of $662 million. I do not know how a government, especially this government, can justify administrative errors of such a magnitude, but that is beside the point. The fact is, the minister conceded there was a $662 million error in his calculations.
Then on December 18 he came into the House and announced at least 20 major transitional changes, as he called them, to his November 12 budget. Some of them, probably most of them, had the effect of restoring benefits to the taxpayer. That restoration in turn had the effect of reducing both federal and provincial revenues originally projected in the budget. So much uncertainty now surrounds the budget, so many changes are being made, and there is such confusion about it, that we still do not know where the provinces will stand once the ways and means motions are presented and voted upon. We do know, though, that the provinces will have a shortfall of at least $5.7 billion because of the elimination of the revenue guarantee.
If I may be allowed to focus on the implication of all this on my own province for a moment, I would point out that the new arrangement means a net loss to Prince Edward Island under established programs financing. In 1981-82 Prince Edward Island received $45 million in EPF, proper, and $3 million under the revenue guarantee part, for a total of $48 million. Under the new system, with the revenue guarantee abolished,
Federal Transfers to Provinces
Prince Edward Island can expect no more than $47 million in 1982-83, $54 million in 1983-84 and $61 million in 1984-85. These projections do not even keep pace with the 12 per cent inflation rate we have had in the country. These amounts will have dire consequences for my tiny province and, indeed, for every province.
At present, the federal government pays in excess of $3 billion for post-secondary education across the country. In 1979-80 $1.6 billion of the total was in cash payments and $1.4 billion in tax points. The $3 billion represents between 65 per cent and 100 per cent of the total spent on post-secondary education in the provinces, from one province to another. In the Atlantic provinces the federal contribution to higher education is about 100 per cent of the total. In my province it is certainly close to that, largely due to a lack of alternative revenue sources.
When the federal government starts to cut back in the area of post-secondary education, the Atlantic provinces are especially vulnerable. In fact, education across Canada will suffer. The provinces, starved of federal funding, will have to squeeze their universities and colleges even harder than they are already squeezed today. Operating grants to post-secondary institutions have grown by only about 41 per cent since 1976, but the consumer price index has jumped 54 per cent in the same period, so the grants are not even keeping up with inflation. Student enrolment has jumped by 70,000 to 630,000 at the university level since 1976. Universities and community colleges are, therefore, being compelled to do much more with much less. The poorer provinces are being hit the hardest.
I need not remind you, Mr. Speaker, that shared-cost programs, almost by definition, are designed to ensure that people across Canada have access to equivalent facilities. The idea is that people are not to be disadvantaged because they lived in Manitoba, Nova Scotia or Prince Edward Island, say, in terms of receiving some minimal level of services. That principle has now been sacrificed by the government on the high altar of the greed of the Minister of Finance.
Alberta, for example, has all kinds of resource revenue. I do not begrudge them that revenue, but I simply state that the province has the wherewithal to roll with the federal government's punches. As the federal government retrenches in areas such as post-secondary education, Alberta can make adjustments. British Columbia, too, has enormous resources revenue and other wealth. Thus, to some extent it can make adjustments, as can Saskatchewan. Those provinces can adjust as the purse strings are pulled tighter. By contrast, the four Atlantic provinces will be left high and dry to fend for themselves.
The total post-secondary education system in the maritimes costs about $260 million annually to operate, of which $190 million or about 73 per cent is paid by the federal government through transfer arrangements. Of that, $120 million or 46 per cent is in cash transfers. The Atlantic provinces, therefore, are singularly vulnerable to any federal government belt tightening.

April 5, 1982
Federal Transfers to Provinces
I hasten to point out that while we in the Atlantic provinces are particularly disadvantaged in that respect, all provinces are affected. I ask myself what is gained by the efforts of the federal government to lower its deficit at the expense of postsecondary education. What is gained by the federal government's efforts to reduce deficits at the expense of any of the major areas in the social development envelope? All the government is doing is transferring its own deficit to the provinces. That is what 1 call Mickey Mouse economics, Mr. Speaker.
The total public debt is what is important in controlling inflation. It is not important whether the debt is at the federal level, the provincial level or the municipal level. It is the total public debt that fuels and inflames inflation. Transferring public debt from one level of government to the other accomplishes absolutely nothing. It is a cosmetic act. Already, because of the federal and provincial retrenchment of financing for post-secondary education, class sizes have had to be increased, library hours at universities and community colleges have had to be cut, research equipment has become increasingly obsolete and many programs have had to be eliminated or truncated. In Ontario, serious consideration is being given to at least the possibility of closing down four universities and four community colleges. That action may never happen. Yet the very fact that it is being considered reflects the extent of the problem.


Mr. LeBlanc:: Scare tactics-that is what it is.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Every department, from engineering to liberal arts, is affected; none is insulated. In the process, the quality of education is being allowed to suffer.
One of the things that particularly concerns me is the question of accessibility. Cuts will make it impossible for a large number of children from middle and lower-income families to go to our colleges and universities. Already, a disproportionate number of students from poorer families is exluded from higher education. New funding arrangements given expression in Bill C-97 will make the situation worse. Universities will be forced to increase fees, perhaps massively. There is a direct link between tuition and accessibility, Mr. Speaker. The Stanford Research Institute established that link beyond a shadow of a doubt in 1975. In the Atlantic provinces most families fall in the lower-income category. In Prince Edward Island, the average family income is only about $18,000 per year. If the provinces, because of cutbacks at the federal level, are forced to reduce funding to universities, and if the universities, in turn, are forced to increase tuition fees, the burden will fall most heavily on the poorer people of the country.
I want to conclude on a note about equalization. I am convinced that, however bad the situation is because of established programs financing arrangements being planned, sunshine will not be shed on the situation due to proposed equalization provisions. Since 1967-68, payments have been
based on a national average of fiscal capacity among provinces. Excluded from the calculations was half the revenue from non-renewable resources; excluded as well were all municipal taxes. Any province which fell below a national level so defined was given an equalization payment. The November budget proposed that a substantial change be made in the old formula; payments were to be made on the basis of the Ontario standard. I argued vehemently in the House against the Ontario standard because the Conference Board, for example, had projected that Ontario in the years to come would have the slowest rates of growth of any province. To hitch the wagon of the have-not provinces to Ontario's star would jeopardize, in all likelihood, the sources of revenue of the provinces under equalization.
I welcome the fact that the minister saw the light and abandoned the Ontario standard. Now with a new formula based on a five-provinces average, he has introduced the capacity of five provinces to raise revenue. The new formula includes all revenue from natural resources and municipal taxes. It excludes Alberta and all Atlantic provinces from the five-province average. The new formula provides for a modification, namely, a ceiling and a floor. Both are helpful. I commend the minister for including them. But I believe that the total effect will be potentially disastrous for provinces like my own, and especially Newfoundland and Nova Scotia because as oil and gas revenues in those provinces come on stream their equalization payments will be reduced correspondingly. That provision amounts to virtually a 100 per cent tax on resource revenue. It cannot help but build into the system a disincentive for the have-not provinces to become self-reliant.
At first blush Prince Edward Island stands to gain. We do not have resource revenues or many municipalities. The inclusion of revenue from those sources has the tendency of defining Prince Edward Island as poorer than would otherwise be the case and therefore to strengthen its position in terms of receiving payments under equalization. The statistics also look encouraging. For example, in 1981-82 we will get $103 million; in 1982-83 we will get $124 million; in 1983-84 we will get $140 million. By 1986-87, Prince Edward Island will receive $189 million.
The statistics do not tell the entire story, however. The problem is that Prince Edward Island, the other Atlantic provinces, Manitoba and Quebec have become too dependent upon transfer payments because the government does not realize the value of helping them to become self-reliant. Instead of giving provinces an opportunity to develop their manufacturing sector, they have been weaned on transfer payments. I think the figures bear this out. Total federal transfers to governments, to persons and to businesses in Prince Edward Island will represent 51 per cent of the island's gross domestic product in 1981-82. By contrast, for all Canada total federal transfers will represent only 13 per cent of gross domestic product in the same year. Prince Edward Island receives the highest per capita equalization payments of any
April 5, 1982

province in Canada at the governmental level. In terms of transfer payments to individuals last year, a total of $52.9 million was paid in unemployment insurance benefits, or an average of $426 for every man, woman and child on Prince Edward Island. We have become very dependent on transfer arrangements. However well structured they may be, and no matter what improvements might be introduced, the basic point is that the federal government is relying too much on the transfer approach to economic development at the expense of preventing the Atlantic provinces and region from becoming to a degree self-reliant.
I should like to stress a point which I made in my speech on the Constitution on October 20, 1980. I made the point then- and I stick to it now-that such regional economic servitude is not exclusively the result of neglect or of accident. I went on to say that one cannot overlook the fact that it has served the interests of central Canada to have the Atlantic provinces as a ready market for their manufactured goods, rather than engaged in manufacturing themselves. National policies, from protective tariffs to freight rates, have consistently favoured Ontario and Quebec-the very provinces whose votes have enabled the Liberal Party of Canada to govern the country for most of this century.
I want to conclude by quoting a former premier of Prince Edward Island, Angus MacLean, who said:
Could it be that the central government only responds "in the national interest" when those who are asked to make concessions are minorities in the House of Commons, but never when those expected to make concessions are the numerical majorities? Could it be that, if we had a truly federal state, in which all partners had a more significant voice, national policies might more truly reflect the interests of all provinces and, hence, the entire country?
To my mind Bill C-97, especially with its proposed changes to the established programs financing and equalization arrangements, perpetuates the same faulty approach. That is why I for one oppose the bill, and I wish to do so vigorously.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) is anxiously awaiting my words of wisdom. We always seem to be in the House together when I make a speech condemning the government, quite properly, for its oversights.
Again I stand in the House on another bill as I have done several times before. Bill C-97 has received first reading and second reading in principle when some very major defects were pointed out on all sides of the House, government backbenchers included. Then the bill went into committee stage where amendments were suggested and some very good reasons for them were given. Report stage having been finished, we are at a point where the government has accepted absolutely none of the recommendations or the amendments of my party or of the NDP. It overlooked and blocked, through its caucus process, changes which its own members would have suggested. The government permitted only one amendment which deals with the province of Manitoba. It was so apparent that it was brought to the attention of the government by members on this side and by the provinces. The government had no choice but to go along with it because the unfairness for the people of Manitoba was just too enormous to overlook. But, sir, the principle still stands: the process is defective and will remain so
Federal Transfers to Provinces
until we reform the parliamentary rules so that the committees can have much more power and so that bills and laws which flow from here are the result of a process in which all regions have shared and which reflect the compromises necessary in a huge land like this.
We have a separatist government in Quebec and a separatist in the Alberta legislature. The complaints, even in Quebec, when you get down to it, are basically that they feel the decisions flowing out of the House are not a sufficient political compromise to enable them to live with them. Is that not the way we are in this country, Mr. Speaker? Until the advent of this government, our politicians have always been able to come up with a compromise which people are prepared to live with. Read the history of Sir John A. Macdonald and the compromises he had to make. He wanted a strong unitary state, but in order for the system to work he had to give and agree to a confederation where the provinces had power. He made that compromise. If you look at the administrations of Louis St. Laurent and John Diefenbaker, you will find that they were prepared to let the regions have a legitimate view. This government is no longer doing that, and I think that is why we have a separatist government in Quebec and a separatist elected in the Alberta legislature.
I gather, Mr. Speaker, that this statute will apply for the next five years. The one clear fact which flows from it is that starting this year the provinces will get less cash for the next five years than they did during the last five years. The government has argued vociferously that that is not so; it is just removing a revenue guarantee which should not be applied to health care and post-secondary education. Sir, the fact of the matter is that there is a cutback, and the members opposite, who never get the true data from their briefing agencies, should turn to Chapter 1, page 32 of the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983. Under the heading "Hospital Insurance", "National Health and Welfare", you find that this year they will transfer $3,985.2 million; last year it was $4,273.2 million. The net change was a drop of $288 million. On that same page, under "post-secondary education", we find that payments have dropped from $1,729 million last year to $1,611 million this year, a drop of $181.2 million. They try to justify it by saying it was a revenue guarantee in 1971. The fact of the matter is that $469 million less will go to the provinces this year. What that means is that certain provinces will be hurt more than others because, as you know very well, provinces are very much like people; they have different fiscal capacities and different natural resources, just as people have different talents.
We find, Mr. Speaker, that British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan are financially flush at this time. They have a strong people, infrastructure and resource base upon which they are building. However, the provinces east of Saskatchewan are in some pretty deep deficit positions, as is the federal government. How can we expect the province of Prince

April 5, 1982
Federal Transfers to Provinces
Edward Island, for example, to handle its share of that $469 million cutback? Even if it is only $5 million or $6 million, where will that province get the money? The real question is one of fiscal capacity and which level of government can best cope with deficits. Clearly the federal government has the best fiscal capacity, and the reason is simple. The federal government can tax all the people and corporations across this huge country. It has exclusive jurisdiction in taxing the resources of the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and that vast land of the Arctic Islands. In addition, they have the offshore areas of both our coasts. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, it has an enormous fiscal capacity as compared to Prince Edward Island with its
122,000	people and its agricultural economy.
The government claims, Mr. Speaker, that the revenue guarantee is the reason it is cutting back. Let me tell you about that revenue guarantee. In 1971, when the then minister of finance, Edgar Benson, brought in tax reform there was great uncertainty as a result of the Carter report. Because of that uncertainty when they signed the agreement in 1971 for fiscal relations applying from 1972 to 1977, the then minister of finance said to the provinces: we will put in this revenue guarantee so that you will not suffer any dramatic negative effects from the new taxation system.
As it turned out, the new system was more harmful to the provinces than the federal government had said it would be, and they had to make a transfer to the provinces under the revenue guarantee. In 1976, with regard to the agreement which would apply from 1977 to 1982, there were discussions about the whole basis of the agreement. The two sides had their respective positions and they simply negotiated until they came up with the 1977 agreement.
During these negotiations the provinces wanted to have four tax points and a certain amount of cash, but the federal government did not agree. They negotiated until the federal government made an offer of $7.60 per capita plus one tax point in lieu of the revenue guarantee. The provinces accepted the offer and the revenue guarantee effectively came to an end. In the yearly transfers from that point on there was no mention at all of the revenue guarantee. Indeed, as further proof of that, Donald Macdonald said in the House that the revenue guarantee had been negotiated away. In addition, the cheques came not from the Department of Finance, as they had from 1972 to 1976, but came in fact from the then minister of national health and welfare for medicare, and the then secretary of state for post-secondary education. That was for the period ending in 1981.
So we then come to a new agreement for 1982-87, and suddenly the federal government says it is going to cut back and is going to take out the revenue guarantee. It skipped back to 1971, ignoring completely the agreement negotiated in 1976, and ignoring the statement by Donald Macdonald that the revenue guarantee had ceased to exist. What kind of a government would do that? I mean, it seems perverse for a government to break its word, to break an agreement and to
use false reasons. That should not be done to the Canadian people. If the government wanted to cut back, why did it not simply and honestly tell Canadians that it had a deficit which it could not handle, that it would therefore cut back, and that it would have to be picked up by the provinces? The government should at least face the problem directly rather than come up with some peculiar and dishonest reason.
I feel strongly about that because I come from the province of Alberta. In 1971, when the international price of oil was rising, the treasurer for the province of Alberta came down and looked at the situation and held discussions with the finance minister. One day they sat together and discussed the whole business of energy. They thought they had an agreement, but the next day the federal minister of energy stood in this House and unilaterally put on an export oil tax. That action by the federal government was totally deceitful. It broke the verbal agreement which had been reached, and broke the spirit of trust between the new government of Alberta and the federal government. The next time they sat down to negotiate the gas agreement-


Mr. Cullen:: What about the royalties?


Blaine Allen Thacker: -the province of Alberta said to the federal government, "Look, we cannot trust your word. Therefore, we must have this in writing". So they negotiated an agreement on natural gas. It was reduced to writing, they signed it, they sealed it and-


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: You don't believe that!


Blaine Allen Thacker: -24 days later, Mr. Gillespie, the former minister of energy, stood in the House and unilaterally repudiated an agreement and totally changed things around. Therefore, one cannot believe the federal government's word.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: What about the royalties? One-eighth to 45 per cent. What about that? It happened overnight.


Blaine Allen Thacker: I will tell the hon. member about those royalties, and I will tell him how much the people of Alberta are getting per gallon of gasoline as compared with the federal government, which has no right to it at all but is just using it for ulterior motives. Will the federal government share its royalty from the Northwest Territories with everyone else?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: All the way! You've got it, Blaine!


Blaine Allen Thacker: The fact is that there is a lower base from which the provinces will receive money, and that will hurt them, particularly the Atlantic provinces.
I would like to deal for a minute with some of the comments made by my friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie). He seemed to be levelling a criticism at this party because we stress that the deficit must be brought under control. He seems to think that because we want the deficit reduced, we are somehow attacking the principles of medicare.
April 5, 1982

Etowever, nothing could be further from the truth. I challenge the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill to find one speech in which anyone from this party has ever attacked the principle of medicare. Indeed, he went on to say that the doctors had come in-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I didn't say that!


Blaine Allen Thacker: -and were challenging medicare.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: You are being overly defensive! I didn't say that!


Blaine Allen Thacker: It is not correct that the doctors are challenging medicare. The hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill sat on the task force which went across the country, as did I, and in every case the doctors came before it and said, "We are in favour of medicare". They went on to say that there were great problems with medicare. Nonetheless not only did they say they were in favour of the principle, they also went on to point out that the people of Canada were getting a bad shake because they were not getting enough health care. They said that the line-ups at their offices were enormously long the lineups at the hospitals were enormously long and the line-ups at the emergency wards were long. The doctors were fighting for a better form of medicare and pointed out that they were grossly underfinanced.
There is no doubt as to the position of the NDP. It agrees that there should be no cutback on government spending and that the deficit should therefore be increased. 1 want to examine that because I submit to Your Honour that we now have a deficit as a result of the Liberal-NDP coalition over the past 14 years-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Blaine Allen Thacker: -which has taken the nation into this enormous debt position. This coalition is now hurting the very people it purports to support. Tell me, Your Honour, are the senior citizens in this country better off tonight than they were ten years ago? Are the poor people in this country better off tonight than they were ten years ago? The truth is that they are not better off. The reason they are not better off is that the deficit will come back to haunt them.
Let us compare the situation now with that of 1968 when we were clearly a unified nation. We were coming out of Expo 67. We were building this great country north of the forty-ninth parallel. Where are we today? Quebec has elected a separatist government, Alberta has now elected a separatist member and the Western Canada Concept is growing by leaps and bounds. We had a balanced budget, but now we have yearly deficits of $14 billion to $15 billion. We had a national debt which was $3 billion to $4 billion, but it is now $140 billion. When one looks at all of the accounts of this country, one finds that some $ 17 billion is taken just to service that debt. That has dramatic ramifications. We must ask, is that $17 billion helping the poor? No, it is not. That $17 billion is concentrated in the hands of people with real wealth. We are therefore becoming a class society. Within a decade, we will have a class of incredibly rich people and a huge class of incredibly poor people, as in India.
Federal Transfers to Provinces


An hon. Member:: That's the Conservatives!


Blaine Allen Thacker: At the same time that we have this tremendous deficit, with too many dollars chasing too few goods, we settle on land. What does that lead to? That leads to classes of landlords and serfs, and it takes us a step back, 900 years back into history, into feudalism. That is what happens when there is a socialist government-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Blaine Allen Thacker: -because it does not respond to the real interests of people.


An hon. Member:: Conservatism.


An hon. Member:: Go back to school!


Blaine Allen Thacker: Members of the NDP are really upset tonight. They are finding that as they go out to talk to the people, the people are beginning to say, "Look, you are the guys who offered us something for nothing. It is great for a few weeks, but then the bill comes in." The socialist coalition has been offering all sorts of socialist programs. It has been telling people that they can have the low capitalist taxes and saying, "It's all right, folks. We will just borrow the difference under the table." That is what the coalition is doing, and now the cost of servicing those debts amounts to $20 billion.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Is medicare a socialist program?


Blaine Allen Thacker: It is evident that socialism is going its full length when a government nationalizes this and nationalizes that. However, in tonight's newspaper it is reported that in Czechoslovakia the pure socialists are saying that it is not working.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Point of order. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) would submit to a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Does the hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) accept a question?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Well, Mr. Speaker, at the end of my speech, if the hon. member is prepared to let me go beyond the 40 minutes of allotted time, I am sure-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Blaine Allen Thacker: -that I will, because this government and its little red rump over there are so afraid. But it will take 40 minutes, I am sure, to set forth even a couple of my points. But I will do it any time.


An hon. Member:: Can you count?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Oh, they are something for nothing people. What did we have in 1968 with respect to hospital insurance, medicare and post-secondary education? In 1968, there were solid, worth-while programs. They were there at a time when the nation could afford them because we had balanced budgets. What do we have now with a deficit of $140 billion requiring $17 billion just to service it? It is necessary that the

Federal Transfers to Provinces
federal government cut back. Even the old socialist Liberal government across the way is having to cut back, just as the governments in Britain, in Russia and in all of the other states are having to do.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gordon Edward Taylor: The hens are coming home to roost, and so are the roosters.


Blaine Allen Thacker: What would be the PC way? We believe that the deficit can be cut while still maintaining these programs. Let us take a look at some of these great socialist corporations which have been put into place. The CNR is a source of great pride to the socialist left.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Tell us about Air Canada!


Blaine Allen Thacker: Why is it that if the CNR, a great socialist corporation, is so good, the government has to write off over $800 million every few years?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Because we inherited it from the private companies that didn't make any money. Read a little history.


Blaine Allen Thacker: What about the Atomic Energy Control Board? There is a beauty that the socialists like. Why do we have to write off over $800 million for AECL? Why do we have over 400 Crown corporations? Here is the point on these Crown corporation. We know that in private industry, of the 400 corporations created this year at least 50 per cent in the normal course would have to drop away because of inefficiency and bad management. Has one Crown corporation ever disappeared? Not one. Because they can come back and get their nose in the public trough, they never drop away, just as there is no recognition of a socialist government.


An hon. Member:: What about socialism?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Look at Air Canada. What about Air Canada? I see it paid a dividend of $13.5 million.


Ian Deans: What about Ontario Hydro? Tell us about that one.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Exactly. How efficient is Ontario Hydro? How responsible is it, with its enormous problem with acid rain? Why is that so, Mr. Speaker? Because it is buying Pennsylvania coal that has 3 per cent to 5 per cent sulphur. That is why. I come winging in from Alberta and I deal with a Crown corporation and I say: "Why don't you buy Alberta coal that has 0.5 per cent sulphur? Look at what that would do for national unity. It would solve your acid rain problem. We could have more tracks, more trains, more cars. We could have mines in Alberta. Would that Crown corporation respond? No, no, it would rather bring in high-sulphur coal.


An hon. Member:: That is the socialist toy.
April 5, 1982


Blaine Allen Thacker: Is it these Crown corporations that are not responsive? The great "commies" to my left, why don't they listen to one of their own? I have just attended a two-day conference. Why don't they listen, why don't they read the speech-I will send it to them, it is by Mr. Richard Lipsey, a very highly recognized socialist. He went to the United Kingdom. He teaches at Queen's University. He spent 17 years in England. He made the socialist experiment. And Richard Lipsey came back and said: "After 17 years of socialism, I am still a socialist, but I am convinced that we have to get back to the market economy". Every incident in the U.K., over 17 years of Crown corporations getting involved and of the government getting involved, has led to disastrous results. The simple conclusion is that we have to get back and let people themselves create the wealth.
That brings me to the point about taxation, Mr. Speaker. How can we let people be creative if we in Parliament and the provincial legislatures are taking all the money from them?
A slave, Mr. Speaker, is simply someone who has lost all his human rights and all of whose decisions with respect to his human rights are made by someone else. A slave in terms of economics is simply someone who is taxed 100 per cent. That takes all of the economic rent from that person, the decisions on how that money is to be spent, are made by someone else. But then, look at what we are doing here. What are we taking from the citizen, for instance, or the miners whom the members of the NDP try to represent? That includes the man who gets black lung disease and dies at 45 years of age. Have we left him his money to decide what to do with it? No, we are taking over 55 per cent. So he is 55 per cent a slave because there is too much government, whereas this party here, would leave that man and that woman and those workers and let the millions and millions of individuals have the liberty to spend that money. We believe that would lead to a wiser result than taxing it away, while we are here in Parliament.
I do not purport to say that I know better how to spend the money of that man who works in Yellowknife and who is going to die of radioactive disease or the black lung disease, or the farmer who sits on his tractor and freezes to death to get that crop in, in the spring, and who becomes exposed to those highly dangerous chemicals that he is spraying for crops and to destroy weeds. And then in the fall there are dangers.
I wonder if the NDP realizes that farming is the most dangerous occupation in the country. Police die at the rate of 3 per 10,000, whereas farmers die at the rate 7.7 per 10,000, in order to put food on the table. Those chaps over there and the Liberals would be only too happy to oblige by taking away all that person's wealth. We would not do that; we would leave it with them.


Ian Deans: Why don't you speak to the bill?


An hon. Member:: Socialism, it is a wonderful story, but it won't work.


Ian Deans: Why don't you speak to the bill?

April 5, 1982


Blaine Allen Thacker: The House leader for the NDP has an abscess or a sore tooth which seems to be bothering him.


Ian Deans: You are making it worse.


Blaine Allen Thacker: He should go back to his room and lie down if he cannot take it. Let us look at the outflows of money, Mr. Speaker. Let us look at the great Crown corporation, Petro-Canada. We have taken $2 billion from the Canadian people, we have taken $2 billion of their tax money. We borrowed it at 19.5 per cent interest.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Blaine Allen Thacker: They don't like it. We hear the socialist chorus in the background. What has Petro-Canada done? At least with John A. Macdonald, he made sure that the money went to the railroad company and that it built something new. That is the difference with a Crown corporation; they never build anything new. I don't mind using government money if they would build something. What happened to the $2 billion or $3 billion the taxpayers put into Petro-Canada? It was used to buy existing oil companies, existing companies that were finding oil and paying money to us in the way of tax dollars that we could redistribute. When we took that $2 billion and bought existing companies, that money flowed out of Canada. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, $10 billion has flowed out of this country, capital that we should have kept here to create jobs for our people. We have over one million unemployed. This is not the time to be developing policies that drain $10 billion out.
As a result of the National Energy Program and the loss of $10 billion, our business climate has been so affected that an additional $8 billion has left. So the unemployment is going to rise, and it will be much more than a million. There will be up to two million unemployed because of this deterioration in the business climate. The members of the NDP simply do not understand the concept of a business climate and the fact that $8 billion has flowed out.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Blaine Allen Thacker: Let me tell them something, Mr. Speaker, about the $8 billion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Blaine Allen Thacker: They seem to think it is part of an international conspiracy of something. I will tell them what it is. It is ordinary Canadians. That $8 billion represents ordinary Canadians taking their money and putting it into other countries.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Blaine Allen Thacker: What is he talking about? Earning money honestly? The hon. member has never earned an honest dollar in his life.


Ian Deans: I have made more honest money than you have ever seen. I understand you are a lawyer.
Federal Transfers to Provinces


Blaine Allen Thacker: He says he is making money on his own now-with a printing machine? Ah, Mr. Speaker, maybe you should give them an aspirin because they really do seem to be riled tonight. They honestly hate to have these things debated because then their position is exposed for what it is.
We set forth a reasonable Progressive Conservative alternative that deals with individuals, because when you get to the bottom line you really find that the NDP does not genuinely trust people. We are prepared to let individuals get out and work and create, and the market economy will thin out the ones that are inefficient. But they do not trust people.
Years and years ago, when people were basically uneducated, there were no laws governing all these things; and people did very well. Now that we have practically the highest average education in the whole world, they want to take over and take everything away from us.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment for a few minutes about the-


Some hon. Members:: The bill!


Blaine Allen Thacker: -about this medicare business.


An hon. Member:: The bill! Let us get back to the bill.


Blaine Allen Thacker: The NDP are part of the group who want to put a total ban on extra billing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Blaine Allen Thacker: That is a fair point, Mr. Speaker. They want to do that. They cannot think anything through very clearly, either, because in the course of the total banning of extra billing, and trying to preserve the medicare system exactly as it is now, they are going to end up by hurting the patients, the people who will use it far more than they could ever imagine today. Why do they not go to Britain? The United Kingdom today is faced with exactly the same situation that these people are trying to impose on Canada. Why is it we in this country are incapable of learning from the experience of others?
We need to know where we were in the past. We ha\4 to know what the unique role of doctors was. They were selfgoverning. They were self-employed in the sense that they provided their own offices and staff. They worked long, hard hours. I do not think anyone would object to that. They had a special doctor-patient relationship. It was felt we should have medicare. This was supported by people all across the country, not just the NDP.


An hon. Member:: But the taxpayer paid.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Does the hon. member believe that just because the taxpayer somehow pays for the education, the doctor is not entitled to any more than the minimum wage? What is the hon. member's point?
The average wage of a doctor in this country is not $100,000. Up to this last increase, it was closer to $58,000. I

April 5, 1982
Federal Transfers to Provinces
know many doctors who earn less than members of the House. Out of that lesser income, they must provide their office, staff and their own pension. That is what I am saying. Why not be honest with the doctors? If Canadians want doctors to be civil servants, why do we not enter into that negotiation? Here is what we would have to do.
We would have to say to the doctor that he will have this type of salary. Let us assume it is the same as we receive. Members of the NDP are often critical of doctors, but they sure take their $65,000, some $16,300 of which is tax free. We could turn to the doctors and say that we will give them $75,000, which will put them on a par with Members of Parliament. They could have access to the same type of pension, 5 per cent a year. After six years, each member of the NDP will either resign from the House or be thrown out and collect a pension of a minimum of 30 per cent.


An hon. Member:: Don't you get that?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Sure I do, but at least I am honest. I do not stand up and hypocritically condemn someone else. That is exactly what members of the NDP do.


An hon. Member:: What are you doing?


Blaine Allen Thacker: I am condemning the hypocrisy of the NDP. I have a feeling that if we went to the doctors and offered them $75,000 a year with the same pension plan as that of Members of Parliament, deputy ministers and senior management, and provided them with office space and staff that Members of Parliament and others receive, and required them to work 37.5 hours a week as do civil servants, every doctor in the land would accept that. If they could get in the trough with that kind of money, they would be in it. Why do we not do that? The cost to the Canadian people would be billions of dollars.
I want to deal with the incomes of doctors. The NDP talk about $100,000. That is not correct. It is true that some specialists make a lot of money, but the average GP works 60 to 70 hours a week. That is why his income is as high as it is. He puts in super-long hours. If a doctor worked 37.5 hours a week, he would earn only half as much as a Member of Parliament. If the Canadian people had to choose between their doctor or their Member of Parliament, they would choose their doctor. When I travelled across the country, including my travels with the task force, I gained a very strong feeling that people favour their doctors. They appreciate the hard work their doctors do. For the NDP to challenge that is just incredible.
The hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill went after the doctors today. He challenged them. If he is going to criticize them and then portray doctors to us as being good people, why does he not say one good word about them? I have never heard that hon. member say anything good about doctors.
Post-secondary education is another critical issue in our society. The cutbacks here are going to hurt more than anywhere else. By making these cutbacks in the Atlantic provinces, the Liberals are attacking the future of the nation. Just
as the deficit places a burden on future generations, cutting back support for post-secondary education will also affect the future. There will be fewer people coming out of our universities and colleges who are adequately trained to take on the challenges of the future. That is bad.
Today the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) made a funny statement about EPF. He said the universities were not meeting the national goals, not responding to the imperatives of the federal government. When I asked him to clarify that, he did not do very well. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) made an interesting comment with regard to the reason for the cutbacks. He said the federal government is going to determine where the money goes because his own province of Quebec uses the money for ulterior purposes.
That may well be, because that province has an elected separatist government that is doing some mighty funny things. However, let us not make cutbacks in all the other provinces, because of a separatist government in Quebec. For years and years people have had to move out of the Atlantic provinces in order to find jobs. The taxpayers in the Atlantic provinces have been keeping the institutions going, providing some of the top graduates in every discipline, but these graduates have had to go to other parts of Canada to find work. So it is quite appropriate that the federal government should transfer enormous amounts of money for education. Maybe it should be 100 per cent.


Roméo LeBlanc: It is. In my province it is 98 per cent.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Why then was there a cutback of $181.2 million in the transfer payments by the Secretary of State (Mr. Regan)? Check page 132 of the estimates. It is in the Blue Book.
The real issue in post-secondary education is fiscal capacity. How can those seven provinces east of Saskatchewan cope with the deficit? The federal government can because it has access to taxation across the whole country. That is not something that the people in P.E.I. can bear. There is clearly a cutback. The revenue guarantee is a fraudulent excuse. I will be glad to oppose this bill tonight because the government has been dishonest with the Canadian people.


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to participate in this debate. However, after listening to the last two speeches, there are a few comments that should be put on the record. We just heard an attempt by a couple of hon. members to drive wedges between the people of this country. I take extreme exception to that kind of political rhetoric and dishonesty.
I was astounded and astonished to hear the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan) talk about the shameful way in which the federal government is treating his province. Let me put a few facts on the record. Let us examine the federal contribution to provinces for post-secondary operating expenses for the years 1974-75 and 1981-82. I can give the
April 5, 1982

hon. member figures for all the years in between but I will use those two years.
I will begin with the province which is represented by the hon. member for Hillsborough. In 1974-75 the percentage of the total operating costs for post-secondary education was 69 per cent from the federal government to the government and people of Prince Edward Island. In 1981-82 it is 110 per cent, and yet that member has the unmitigated gall to rise and say that we are reducing the expenditures to the provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: The hon.
member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) talks about $185 million. As usual they are using selective figures and selectively misleading the public with those figures because that $185 million from the department of the Secretary of State which she talks about refers specifically to second-language training in the province and does not refer to post-secondary education.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It is in the estimates. That is a lie.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: That is another canard laid to rest.
Let us examine the other provinces. If we look at the percentages as a percentage of the operating expenses of postsecondary education, in Newfoundland it was 62 per cent in 1974-75 and 83 per cent in 1981-82. In Nova Scotia it was 51 per cent in 1974-75 and 58 per cent in 1981-82, a modest growth there. For New Brunswick it was 62 per cent in 197475 and 98 per cent in 1981-82. Ninety-eight per cent, Mr. Speaker, and the premier of the province had the nerve to get up in front of a group of students in front of the legislature the other day and tell them that if they want more support for education they had better see their federal members. What a disgraceful performance we are getting from these Tories. I will refer to Premier Hatfield a little later, as sickening as it may be. In Quebec it was 50 per cent in 1974-75 and only 49 per cent in 1981-82, which of course has to do with the particular bent of the Quebec government at the present time. In the wealthy province of Ontario it was 46 per cent in 1974-75 and 60 per cent in 1981-82. In Manitoba it was 51 per cent and 68 per cent.


An hon. Member:: You are playing with figures.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: In Saskatchewan it was 48 per cent and 61 per cent. In Alberta it was 46 per cent and 51 per cent. In British Columbia it was 43 per cent and 54 per cent. In 1974-75, the figure nationally was 48 per cent of all the operating costs for post-secondary education in Canada which came from the federal government. That percentage has grown to 57 per cent in 1981-82. All this despite the fact that we have no responsibility whatsoever in post-secondary education or indeed in elementary and secondary education.
Federal Transfers to Provinces
There are a few points which have to be made about those figures. These federal transfers to the provinces are an attempt by the federal government to achieve a balance of restraint and responsibility. I wish that the premiers of these provinces would exercise some balance, responsibility and restraint. I wish that members opposite would show some restraint, responsibility and balance.


Gordon Edward Taylor: How about the Liberals? Do not tell us about restraint, practise it.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: There have been no cutbacks in equalization payments or in the established programs financing payments. Members opposite do a lot of talking about the revenue guarantee being cut out.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has just said that there have been no cutbacks in EPF transfers. 1 wonder if he could explain in that context why we were given figures in committee, which were issued to us last week by the Department of Finance, which show that EPF transfers have dropped in 1981-82 from $6,187 million to $5,807 million. Could be explain why the Department of Finance gave us those figures?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Does the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) choose to accept the question at this time?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, to begin with, that was not a point of order. However, the fact is that the hon. member knows, or should know, that that is the base figure without the transfer of tax points and other programs, like the refusal, on the agreement of the government, to charge back to the four Atlantic provinces and to Manitoba the excess moneys that were paid to them because of their decline in population, which amount to about $67 million as an outright gift in the case of New Brunswick, for example. I can give the figures for the other provinces but I think I have used enough figures.
There have been no cutbacks. Another fact that the opposition continually refuses to recognize is that the Government of Canada, as a national government, must protect its ability to fashion, implement and promote national policies. The opposition continually forgets about this. They want to sectionalize the country and turn it into that community of communities which will be a community of nothing if they have their way.
All of the money which we are talking about is being given to the provinces without strings attached. As a matter of fact, if 1 have any fault to find with this program it is the fact that strings are not being attached. The very reason the revenue guarantees are being cut out as a separate payment to the provinces is that the provinces were using those guarantees for all sorts of projects except those for which the money was intended, that is health, medicare and post-secondary education. They were going to build all kinds of edifices to the memory of the Tory ministers in those provinces.

April 5, 1982
Federal Transfers to Provinces


Gordon Edward Taylor: That is completely false and you know it. You are day-dreaming.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Almost $200 million in overpayments were forgiven to five provinces.
The evidence is in the facts that I am afraid the hon. member for Hillsborough deliberately ignored when he was speaking in the House and misleading the Canadian public with his selective figures, and in fact with his statements that were based on nothing but his own imagination.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: The fact is that at least 80 per cent of every penny that the government spends in his province comes directly or indirectly from moneys raised by the federal government. I happen to be rather proud that those of us who live in the less advantaged provinces can obtain that kind of support from the federal government. But if those members over there who want to tear apart and destroy the national government and give all power to the provinces have their way, we will not be getting those payments for very long. It is damn near time somebody woke up to that fact and told them so. As a matter of fact, the Government of Canada has been increasing the support to postsecondary education on a regular basis, as the figures I have quoted tonight prove.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Tell us another fairy tale.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: As a matter of fact, Prince Edward Island now receives 126 per cent of the operating costs of its university. We just heard the hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) say that that is fine because the federal government is obviously the one which can most easily afford the deficit. Yet they get up on their hind legs here every day and condemn the government for the size of the deficit while at the same time demanding increased expenditures from the government. They cannot have it three ways, and that is why they are in opposition.
We also heard the hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills talk about a separatist government in Quebec and a separatist being elected in Alberta. Obviously that distresses all of us.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I am sure it does.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I take exception to that facetious remark by the hon. member for Kingston and The Island, who thinks she is the only one around here who is a Canadian. She thinks she is the only one who cares about this country, and she is not. There are many of us who care. I do not question her loyalty to this country, and I do not like her questioning that of anyone else because she is not the only one around here who has virtue, and she has no monopoly on it, as far as I know.
Would the growth of separatism in western Canada have anything to do with the propaganda of the Tories in this House, their hate campaign against the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), their hate campaign against the Charter of Rights and their continued belittling of the Charter of Rights in many speeches across the country because it does not contain a guarantee of property rights?


Gordon Edward Taylor: Tell us about metric.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Never once did hon. members opposite publicly say that clause was in the Charter of Rights and was withdrawn at the insistence of all the provinces. The Premier of Prince Edward Island was one of the most vociferous against that clause in the Charter of Rights, as well as the premiers of Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba and British Columbia.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Tell us about metric.


Mr. Blais:: That is what he is talking about.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: There is no point in telling the hon. member about metric because he does not understand it.


Mr. MacBain:: He doesn't understand imperial either.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I want to put on the record a couple of brief quotations. I want to quote from a speech-


Gordon Edward Taylor: Tell us about gun control.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: -given in the House on March 26 by my colleague, the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau), when he was talking about this very bill.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The switcher.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: He said:
The moral question is important... My own province of New Brunswick is an example but we could take any province, the trend is the same in all. In New Brunswick the federal contribution as a share of provincial expenditures for postsecondary education through EPF-and I include in that, minority and second language training-has gone from 78.1 per cent in 1976-77 to 107 per cent in this fiscal year. That is legally correct. Those are the facts, Mr. Speaker. In 1976-77 the federal government paid 67.7 per cent of what the post-secondary institutions spent. When I say post-secondary institutions, I do not mean only universities but include everything after high school-community colleges and technical schools. What credit does this federal Parliament get for that?
Is the hon. member for Hillsborough prepared to give credit to the federal Parliament? Is the hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills?


Thomas Michael McMillan: I did.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: The hon.
member for Hillsborough gave it, yes, in a very left-handed manner after he put all kinds of canards on the record.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Where did you get the money in the first place?
April 5, 1982


Maurice Adrian Dionne: 1 want to put another quotation on the record, and this one is from the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). We have heard doom and gloom from the opposition on about how badly they are being treated, and I think it is important that this statement be put on the record one more time.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Tell us whom you get the money from.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: We get the
money from the people of Canada, the same people the hon. member's colleague just said we could afford to tax more in order to give to the provinces. The hon. member cannot have it both ways, so he should just sit there and keep quiet for a minute. Perhaps he will learn something. He may not be beyond the pale yet.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Tell us about where it came from.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: It came from the taxpayers of this country, and it is precisely because of the Government of Canada and the generosity of Canadians across this country that we can afford to make equalization payments to the poorer provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: It is precisely for that reason that we in the House should not be misrepresenting the facts as they have been time and time again by Tory members across the way.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Tell us about loans to Russia and the statue in Algiers.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I would like to go on and put on the record the quotation from the Minister about which I spoke.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Tell us about loans to Russia and low-interest loans to other countries.


Eymard G. Corbin: The order of the day is transfer payments to the provinces, Taylor. You know that; wake up.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I am wide awake. I am sick and tired of your policies.


Eymard G. Corbin: Write your motions under Standing Order 43, and never mind the rest.


Gordon Edward Taylor: It is that kind of talk that is causing separation.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. yahoo opposite would keep quiet, I would continue my speech.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Talk sense, then.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I wish to put this quotation from a speech of the Minister of Finance on the record because of the dire statements made by hon. members
Federal Transfers to Provinces
opposite and their exclamations about how we as a national government are being so grossly unfair to the provinces.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Hear, hear!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: This is what the Minister of Finance said:
Four of the six equalization receiving provinces have formally indicated to me that they find the representative average standard system conceptually superior to the Ontario standard and consequently they are able to support it. 1 have received written communications to that effect from the Hon. Richard Hatfield, Premier of New Brunswick-
He is hardly a Liberal.
-the Hon. Joel Matheson, Minister of Finance of Nova Scotia-
Another Tory.
-the Hon. Dr. John Collins, Minister of Finance of Newfoundland-
Another Tory, for the time being.
-and the Hon. Lloyd MacPhail, Minister of Finance of Prince Edward Island.
That is the island we just heard was being devastated by this formula.
I have had detailed discussions with each of these ministers on the implications of the equalization formula for the province concerned. I have had negotiations with finance ministers as a group; I have had them individually; and 1 have had discussions with them by telephone since the first ministers' conference. 1 believe that we have made an effort, an honest and successful effort, to accommodate the principal concerns of equalization receiving provinces.


Roméo LeBlanc: Why don't you admit it, Tom?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I want to talk again about the topic raised by the hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills, the separatists in this country.


Mr. Anguish:: Western Conservative cousins.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: There is no doubt that we have problems in this country, and those problems will not be solved by members of this House going across the country sowing and cultivating hatred among Canadians and sowing and cultivating mistrust, distrust and discord, because that kind of sowing and cultivating can only result in the reaping of disaster. We cannot sow hatred and reap love any more than we can spend without taxing.
We happen to be a very fortunate nation. We happen to be perhaps the most fortunate nation on earth, and I find it very disconcerting to sit here in this chamber day after day listening to hon. members from various parts of this country proclaiming what an awful state we are in. I do not believe we are in such an awful state on a comparative basis. It is true we have problems today which we did not have in 1974 or 1972 or 1968. We have problems, and there can be no argument that we do not, but compared with any other nation we are fortunate indeed. There are few other nations in which Members of Parliament could get away with making some of the outrageous statements which are being made in this country. There are few countries indeed where a fellow like the fellow who has just been elected to the legislature of Alberta could make the kinds of calumnies he did in his election campaign about the

April 5, 1982
Federal Transfers to Provinces
national government and get away with it. There indeed are few other countries in the world where the editor of the Edmonton Journal and the publisher of the Alberta Report could continuously and consistently publish calumnies, falsehoods and outrageous distortions and not have to be called before the bar of justice. And it might not be a very just bar if it were in many other countries. Yet day after day in the House hon. members try to sow the seeds of dissension, the seeds of distrust and the seeds of disunity.
In this House we brag, or some members do, because one province has a separatist government and that is supposed to make the federal government look bad. We brag in this House, or some of us do, because a separatist has been elected in Alberta. That is supposed to make the federal government look bad. We crow because-


Mr. Elzinga:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In all fairness, the hon. member opposite should clarify what he is saying. I should like to know who has bragged in the House. If he cannot name the member then it is obvious that he is not telling the truth.


Jean-Jacques Blais: You should have been here earlier. There were three of them tonight.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I am trying-


Peter Elzinga: You are very trying!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: -to put some facts on the record tonight. Obviously I am cutting rather close to the quick of some of the members opposite. Just a few minutes ago we heard the hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills crow because this government was responsible for the election of a separatist in Alberta. If that is not crowing then I do not know what is.


Peter Elzinga: You said bragging.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: What is the difference between bragging and crowing? The hon. member is crowing now and his colleague was bragging. That is okay.
It seems to me that it would behoove us all to tone down the political rhetoric in this nation and start to deal a little more in fact than in fancy. We should try to knit together the noble fabric of the nation rather than try to shred it.
I do not take any satisfaction in the fact that there is a separatist government in Quebec. I do not take any satisfaction in the fact that there are separatist candidates running in the Saskatchewan election. I suppose it will be immaterial in the final analysis or one hundred years from now who will win the election in Saskatchewan, unless it happens to be the separatists. I am confident it will not be, however, but that would not be a matter of indifference to historians. It is not a matter of
indifference to us today, or it should not be that there is a separatist government in Quebec, a separatist government that is turning Canadian against Canadian. That is what some of the rhetoric uttered by other politicians in the country is doing-it is turning Canadian against Canadian.
We hear some of the most outrageous rhetoric-we heard some tonight, Mr. Speaker. Some was shouted at me across the aisle on the subject of metrication. Whether we like metrication or whether we do not is immaterial, I suppose, but many years ago a decision was taken-in fact the law regarding metric was passed by Sir John A. Macdonald's government-


Gordon Edward Taylor: Baloney!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: The hon.
member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) does not accept that either, but it happens to be a fact.


Gordon Edward Taylor: He did not impose it on people.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: It was he who
passed the law, but I am not going to get into any more arguments with the rather vocal member opposite who is inclined to be rhetorical. As a matter of fact, the government of which he was once a supporter promoted the metric system just as this government has. Yet hon. members opposite go across the country talking about it being forced down their throats even though when that party formed the government it followed exactly the same practice.


Mr. Huntington:: You do not know what you are talking about!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: There is nothing new about that.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: The only
difference is that that government appointed a minister of state for metric.
I hope that in the days ahead, we will continue as a national government to contribute to the legitimate needs of the provinces. I hope as well that the governments of the provinces recognize where the funds come from because they come from all the people of Canada who, through their taxes and their generosity, make equalization payments possible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Burnaby.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


An hon. Member:: Let's vote.


Some hon. Members:: Question, question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Mr. Speaker, I have the floor and there are a few remarks that I should like to make and I am going to make them.
April 5, 1982

Voltaire once said that when it comes to money we are all of the same religion. He could have said as well that when it comes to taxes we are all of the same religion.
Just the other day the Fraser Institute published figures which indicate that 40 per cent of the average Canadians income goes to taxes. A study of the history of the world and many civilizations will show that as soon as taxation goes above 40 per cent, all incentive in the country dies. That is the time a country gets into serious trouble. This country is in that state today, Mr. Speaker. It scares the pants off me when 1 see what is taking place.
You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberal government forced the provinces into medicare by guaranteeing to pay 50 per cent of the cost. It forced them into block funding by offering a bonus of $7.63 per capita and one equalization tax point. This bill removes that incentive, although as late as April 23, 1981, a Liberal minister promised that it would be maintained.
We speak of the need for higher education in this country yet each of us has received letters from our secondary schools and universities complaining about the cutbacks in funds for education. These cutbacks were instituted by this government, a government that claims to be interested in research and development while it cuts back on funds for education.
We talk about equalization for all provinces and of course no member is opposed to the poorer provinces receiving help from the richer provinces. The question is how that should be done. The bill mentions five provinces-but why not equalization based on ten provinces, Mr. Speaker? Why not treat each province exactly the same as the others?
The government has lost control of national educational standards, Mr. Speaker. There are just no standards. Some of the gobbledygook I have heard this evening appals me. The House has ceased to be a place of reasoned thought, a place where we all realize that each of us came here for the same reason, and that is, to do the best we can for our country. 1 hear insults hurled back and forth on all sides of the House, and in many cases the debate strays very, very far away from the subject matter of Bill C-97, which is what we are supposed to be discussing. The subject of metrication comes up-deplorable as that may be-and other subjects which should not be discussed. I suggest that stronger restraint on the part of the Speaker should be exercised.
1 am not going to speak very long on this bill, Mr. Speaker. Obviously I will vote against it and 1 will vote against it because it is bad for the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Federal Transfers to Provinces


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those in favour please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 declare the motion carried.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed. [Translation]


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Saint-Denis.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to advise hon. members, including my good friend the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), that the Quebec Liberal Party has just won two resounding victories in the ridings of Saint-Laurent and Louis-Hebert.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, in light of the interest of the Liberal Party in by-elections, I wonder if the Prime Minister might call the three by-elections.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Pierre Deniger (La Prairie):: During question period last Friday, Mr. Speaker, I referred to statements made by
respresentatives of the Canadian shipping industry, who held a convention in Ottawa last week, concerning the levying of a surcharge on marine fuel expended by Canadian ships on international voyages in inland waters.
Again this morning, at the official opening of the seaway for 1982 which took place in Saint-Lambert in my riding of La Prairie, a number of representatives of the industry foresaw a very difficult season and blamed it precisely on this surcharge. In principle, the National Energy Program aims at protecting the Canadian economy by making it possible for all Canadians to buy Canadian oil below world prices. The fact that world prices are imposed on Canadian ships as well as on foreign ships, while highway or railway transportation are exempted deals a very hard blow to an industry which is of paramount importance to a sound economy.
Such a discriminatory policy, according to representatives of the Canadian shipping industry known as Dominion Marine, may have dire consequences not only for the shipping industry but also for Canadian consumers. The practice will deprive Canadian shipping of essential cargo and benefit American shippers who are now more competitive. There is, therefore, the possibility of a huge deficit. Thus, Mr. Speaker, American steel plants are already getting less of their iron ore from Quebec and Labrador and more from the United States themselves, particularly from the Mesabi Range. Unemployment will therefore increase in Canada. The higher transportation costs of those Canadian industries which use and depend on river and sea transport will inevitably result in higher consumer prices. Water transport is now the least expensive means of transport available. It is three times more energy efficient than the railways and eight times more than road transport. Therefore, by forcing the sea carriers to pay world prices for their fuel, which does not apply to road and railway transport, the federal government is promoting a traffic transfer to a means of transport which is less energy efficient. This is a cause for concern at a time when energy conservation is an absolute priority.
While supporting the efforts of our government aimed at avoiding that foreign sea carriers benefit from lower fuel prices on the domestic market, 1 cannot agree to a policy which clearly discriminates against one sector of the Canadian industry. This policy goes against the purpose of the National Transportation Act, which states the following:
Regulation of all modes of transport will not be of such a nature as to restrict the ability of any mode of transport to compete freely with any other modes of transport;
I believe that the right to free competition has been unfairly restricted. The Canadian maritime industry uses 6,000 barrels of fuel a day for domestic international shipments. By imposing world prices, the government will get about $5.5 million a year. This $5.5 million of additional revenue constitutes the only advantage for the government. The benefit seems small
April 5, 1982

compared with the following costs: first, the additional administrative costs imposed on the private and public sectors, which will amount to over $1 million.
Second, the loss of a major part of the American traffic which was until now using Canadian ships, and finally, which is even worse, the obvious damage caused to the entire Canadian maritime transport industry. To conclude, Mr. Speaker, it seems obvious to me that this action goes against the interests not only of the industry, but also of Canada, and I believe that the government would be wise to reconsider its position.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for La Prairie (Mr. Deniger) for raising an issue which is not only very important to the industry but also to the government.
Allow me to take this opportunity to remind hon. members what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) said when he replied to this question in the House on April 2, that the government has always had taxation systems that varied, depending on the type of transportation. For instance, we have certain taxes for land carriers which are different from those levied on marine carriers. He went on to say that Canadian carriers have a considerable advantage in Canadian ports and that, while in the case of international transportation the same arrangement exists for United States' and Canadian ships, there is no evidence that this factor has any effect on the preference for Canadian over U.S. carriers, or vice versa.
I would like to remind the House of the objective of the transportation fuel compensation recovery charge. It is to ensure the recovery of equivalent federal oil import compensation payments for oil exported in the form of marine fuel. The charge is currently levied on fuel used by domestic and foreign vessels involved in international trade.
The transportation fuel compensation recovery charge on marine fuel, as it pertains to domestic carriers, is based on prevailing competitive fuel prices in U.S. and other relevant international markets. Since fuel prices vary considerably from country to country, and change frequently, this is a matter requiring judgment and ongoing review.
I would like to emphasize that Canadian carriers are paying international fuel prices only for marine fuel consumed in international transportation. Fuel consumed in travelling between Canadian destinations, which generally comprises the largest portion of fuel purchased in Canada by domestic carriers, will still be acquired at subsidized Canadian price levels. The application of international fuel prices on a nondiscriminatory basis to both Canadian and foreign carriers is consistent with undertakings which Canada has with other countries and international organizations. In addition, it is reasonable to expect Canadian carriers to maximize efficient
Adjournment Debate
fuel utilization and to pay international level fuel prices when competing with foreign carriers in international transportation markets.
Finally, there appears to be no evidence at present that the charge is causing serious damage to the economic position of the industry. Much of the reduced activity, which some in the marine industry have apparently ascribed to the TFCRC, is the result of changing market circumstances and slower economic growth. I am sure hon. members would agree. In addition, the administration of the charge has helped to ease the impact on the Canadian marine sector, for example-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary but the rules for adjournment motions are extremely strict. I cannot allow him more than three minutes as that would have to be subtacted from the time available to other members.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE-ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Peter Elzinga: Mr. Speaker, in participating in the adjournment debate tonight I should like to say that a number of us on this side have, on a regular basis, put questions to the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan). I refer to the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) and the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) and myself. We have asked the Solicitor General to release the documentation RCMP defence counsel have requested, as it is essential for a fair and full trial of the 17 RCMP officers charged in the Quebec courts. I have pointed out that two former security service chiefs have indicated that they were pressured by the government to become involved in probing, by legal or illegal means, separatism in Quebec. The reason for the Solicitor General's refusal to release the documentation is simply a cover-up-the alleged cover-up for this government's illegal activities. It is alleged that the reason for the failure to release these papers is that the documents would shift the blame from the RCMP to Liberal politicians and bureaucrats. In addition, there are allegations that this documentation will be destroyed in order to make sure that Liberal politicians are never implicated.
Mr. Paul Jackson, who is the Ottawa correspondent for the Edmonton Journal, has put months of research into a lengthy article which appeared in that newspaper on February 4, 1982. I should like to commend him for his painstaking research that went into his story, which is the basis for my remarks this evening. He contends-and I agree-that the treatment the 17 officers are receiving from this government is shameful.
I hope the government will have the decency to release these papers, at least to the courts, so that these officers do not have to take the blame for the instructions they received from top Liberal politicians and bureaucrats.
Douglas Fisher of The Toronto Sun highlighted the story in an article of April 2, 1982, and paid tribute to Mr. Jackson for

April 5, 1982
Adjournment Debate
his thoroughness in investigating the story. Mr. Fisher also indicated that "there does remain unfinished matters of equity
and fairness".
Let us look for just a moment at the McDonald commission report. I should like to illustrate a very good example of McDonald's two-faced posture. He would not criticize government ministers because he is a Liberal and part of the "old boy" network, but his findings when read carefully are contradictory. We must remember that Starnes did not know until February of this year that McDonald had been president of the Alberta Liberal Party. Starnes had been wondering for months why McDonald never took time in his reports to make public his devastating evidence of Liberal Party attempted manipulation of the RCMP for partisan purposes. This is why Starnes resigned in disgust in 1973.
An example of the unfairness which resulted from the McDonald commission decision to avoid comment on the quality of the acts of ministers and senior public servants is contained in its third report. On page 177 the commission criticized John Starnes, the former security service chief, in the following terms:
Mr. Starnes was aware of violations of federal and provincial laws occurring as a result of physical surveillance operations. Specifically, he was aware of traffic violations, the use of false documentation, false registration in hotels and the use of false or "dummy" registration for surveillance vehicles. In the absence of supporting evidence we do not accept Mr. Starnes' broad statement that the security service talked to ministers about traffic violations and dummy registrations ... Mr. Starnes took no steps to stop these practices which he considered to be illegal and in that respect his conduct was unacceptable.
However on page 45 of the same report, in dealing with what transpired at a meeting of cabinet ministers and senior officials on December 1, 1970, the following passage appeared concerning testimony by the secretary to cabinet, Gordon Robertson:
-he docs not doubt that Mr. Starnes must have said something like, "the S & I has been doing illegal things for 20 years but never caught" or such words would not in his view appear in the notes.
The report went on to say that the secretary to cabinet:
-infers, from the fact that the notes do not record that anyone at the meeting asked Mr. Starnes what he meant by that statement, that everyone around the table must have thought Mr. Starnes was talking about ... "minor misdemeanours where things like traffic violations, false registrations in hotels, completing ownership certificates for cars falsely, surreptitious entry, other things of that kind took place", and that was thought to be a perfectly normal and necessary part of police work.
It is difficult to imagine what better supporting evidence the commission needed to satisfy itself that ministers and senior officials were aware of such activities, yet nowhere in the three reports of the commission is the secretary to cabinet or any of the 15 others around the table criticized or cited for unacceptable conduct on this score.
This raises the interesting question of whether ministers and senior officials received notice, called "Section 13 Notices", as did Starnes, warning them that they might be cited for unacceptable conduct in relation to their knowledge of possible violations of federal and provincial laws as a result of physical surveillance operations carried out by the RCMP. If ministers
and senior officials also received such notices, the question then arises as to why such criticisms are not in the third report.
Possible explanations are that, (a) those who might have received such notices were more successful than was Starnes in appealing before the commission, (b) the criticisms were removed from the reports by the governments, or (c) the commission decided that the testimony of the secretary to cabinet, Gordon Robertson, did not constitute, to use the words of the commission, "knowledge of illegal activity combined with a failure to stop it or deal with it in some proper manner, or willful blindness".
I close, Mr. Speaker, by saying that my main concern is to protect the innocence of the 17 RCMP officers charged in the Quebec courts. I think this government has a responsibility to the officers to offer those documents at least to the court, so they will be cleared of any charges against them, because they received their directions from the ministers opposite.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, as the House will recall, during the course of proceedings in November, 1981, against present and past members of the RCMP instituted by the attorney general of Quebec, it was necessary to swear an affidavit under Section 41.2 of the Federal Court Act to withold documents requested by defence counsel. These documents contained information the production of which would be injurious to national security, or disclose confidences of the Queen's Privy Council of Canada. The documents requested were among the thousands to which the commission of inquiry into the RCMP had access.
The federal commission of inquiry, headed by Mr. Justice David McDonald, was given access to all categories of government and RCMP documents. In an unprecedented move, under the terms of an order in council passed in 1979, the commission was permitted access to cabinet and cabinet committee minutes which might bear on government knowledge of illegal activities. In its third report the commission pronounced itself well satisfied with the terms and conditions of this access. It had access to the indexes of the minutes of cabinet and its committees, and was shown any minute which it thought relevant to its concerns. In its report the commission noted that the Clerk of the Privy Council interpreted its right of access to cabinet and cabinet committee in broad terms.
In its report published in August, 1981, the commission made three principal findings: Certain members and former members of the RCMP had committed acts not authorized or provided for by law which could be referred to an Attorney General, federal or provincial, for possible prosecution, and to the commissioner, RCMP, for possible discipline; that in order to establish the context of the acts in question, certain information should be made public notwithstanding the need to protect cabinet confidences, national security and international relations; no superior authority for the acts could be attributed to ministers and senior officials.
April 5, 1982

The commission sought and received declassification of the relevant portions of many classified documents, and reported at length on the contents of many of them. These disclosures were unprecedented in our history, and were made possible, not as a result of findings of wrongdoing but because the government acceded to the commission's request to publish all relevant material, even if the purpose was to establish that no wrongdoing occurred.
The commission took the view that it would be necessary to make a report citing misconduct if any minister or senior official participated in, knew of, or failed to deal with activities of the RCMP not authorized or provided for by law. After hearings, which numbered in excess of 300, and having received evidence from numerous ministers and senior officials, including the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the commission was unable to make any finding of misconduct against any minister, former minister, senior official or former senior official.
The government, through its judicial commission of inquiry, has done everything possible to ensure the publication on the basis of independent advice of all material relevant to questions of guilt or innocence in relation to allegedly illegal activities of the RCMP.


PUBLIC SERVICE-ACTION TAKEN AGAINST EMPLOYEE OF DEPARTMENT OF MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION. (B) APPLICATION OF CHARTER OF RIGHTS
Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, on March 30, 1982, I had an opportunity to present to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), and then to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the case of Paul McNeill of Halifax, Nova Scotia. Mr. McNeill is employed by the Department of Employment and Immigration as an economist whose duties include assessing the labour force and market in his region, which duties are totally unrelated to the federal government home insulation program. Mr. McNeill has another avocation forced upon him by a chain of unfortunate circumstances.
In 1979 he purchased a home in which urea-formaldehyde foam insulation had been installed. 1 will not detail the subsequent links in the chain, but suffice it to say that he and his family suffered physically from the effects of this chemical product officially approved by CMHC as agent for the Government of Canada. Understandably, Mr. Speaker, he joined with others who had encountered a similar problem. In 1981, he was active in the formation of an association called the Urea-Formaldehyde Fight Society of Nova Scotia. He removed the UFFI from his home in August of 1981 at a cost of $12,500. Quite naturally, he was interested in whatever compensation program the federal government had established. Quite understandably, he was disappointed, as were the other 80,000 Canadians with UFFI in their homes, at the level of compensation offered by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet). That program, as Your Honour recalls, had a limit of $5,000 for remedial measures. However, I am not here to discuss or debate the compensation
Adjournment Debate
to home owners with UFFI, but to consider the more important matter, namely, freedom of speech and public expression.
In my question, I was concerned with two related matters: first, the provision in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and, second, the need and desirability of a code of conduct to govern the activities of departmental employees of the Government of Canada. The Government of Canada, in the case of the Department of Employment and Immigration, has apparently approved a very extensive code of conduct, a portion of which I will read. However, let me First deal with the provisions in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that everyone, that is every person in Canada, has the right of freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of press and other media of information. Those freedoms are guaranteed by Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which states that these freedoms exist and are only limited to the extent that it can be demonstrably justified, in a free and democratic society, that restrictions are required.
The question I put to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Employment and Immigration was simply this: does the provision of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms not allow public servants, along with all Canadians, to publicly express their opinions and their views on a matter of serious concern to them? Is any restriction on that right of public expression not outlawed by the provision of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Of course, the answer I got from the Prime Minister was that the matter would have to be determined by the courts of law.
It is a shame and a crime that we stood in this House of Commons day after day and debated the provisions of the constitutional proposal, particularly the provision of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but that when there is a practical application, where a dedicated public servant only seeks a remedy for a wrong which has been done to him, he must go to the courts to seek redress.
I want to underline and point out to members of the House and to all Canadians that, with that kind of attitude on the part of the Prime Minister and of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, this Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms will become an empty and meaningless document.
Let me address a few remarks to the other aspect of the question that I put to the Minister of Employment and Immigration concerning the code of conduct which has apparently been adopted in respect of employees in his department. Anyone who looks at this code of conduct would be shocked by the wide nature of its provisions with respect to public criticism. The document virtually outlaws criticism of any kind of any government official or government policy whatsoever, whether it relates to the Department of Employment and Immigration or to any other work of the Government of Canada. The adoption of such a code of conduct would force employees of the Department of Employment and Immigration

April 5, 1982
Adjournment Debate
into second class status. It is not fair to the 500,000 public employees of Canada and other public employees across this country.
The adoption of a Charter of Rights and Freedoms for all Canadians can have real meaning only if we give it proper force and effect. If we cannot invoke the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in a practical situation to support the public statements of an employee of the Government of Canada, a Canadian citizen seeking to redress wrongs done to him, then it is meaningless and empty. Therefore, my point on rising is to bring to the attention of this House and of the public the plight of Paul McNeill and all other public servants whose right to express their opinions freely is unnecessarily restricted by the code of conduct and by improper interpretation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I hope the government will see the error of its ways and right the wrongs which have been done to Paul McNeill and other government employees.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, first allow me to say to the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) that I am glad to hear that he and his party are in agreement with the program that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) has announced as it relates to the problem of UFFI. Furthermore, no one on this side of the House disagrees or questions the integrity or, indeed, the competence of the individual in question. That is certainly not the issue.
The nature of the various provisions contained in the code of conduct referred to by the hon. member are by no means peculiar to the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission. These guidelines respecting employee conduct are founded on a well-established and widely understood principle, based on jurisprudence and precedent as these have evolved over time in both the public and private sectors. The proscription against public criticism in particular has been tested and supported many times through third-party review in the labour courts and tribunals, where it has consistently been held that while terms and conditions of employment may be publicly commented upon, employees must avoid public statements which are closely associated with criticism of government policies and programs.
In the case of Mr. McNeill, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission met its obligation to remind the employee of the provisions of the code of conduct and to ensure that the guideline with respect to public criticism was properly understood. The decision was ultimately Mr. McNeill's, whether or not to continue as public spokesman. It should be noted that at no time was Mr. McNeill requested or required to forgo his membership in this interest group.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At 10.52 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, April 6, 1982