1985-04-18

Hon. Barbara McDougall (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that Bill C-39, an Act to provide for the making of supplementary fiscal equalization payments to certain provinces for the period April 1, 1982 to March 31, 1987 be now read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to bring before the House today Bill C-39, a Bill which relates to fiscal equalization, one of the country's most important programs. The unconditional payments which equalization provides to provinces which are relatively less well off than others make it possible for them to provide their residents with public services on a level that is reasonably comparable with other provinces. In this way, the equalization program provides an assurance to all Canadians, irrespective of where they live, that they may expect to enjoy a reasonable level of public services from their provincial and local Governments. It therefore meets an important objective of our nation and one that is recognized in the Constitution.
The expenditures which the federal Government makes under this program are large and have grown steadily over the years. Beginning at less than $140 million in 1957-58 when the program was introduced, they now total more than $5 billion annually in payments to six provinces. The growth in the program reflects the rising cost of financing public services in Canada generally as well as the persistence of disparities in the abilities of provinces to finance these services through taxation.
This Bill resolves a particular situation which has arisen in the equalization program, one with which this Government was confronted when it took office. It concerns the decline in equalization payments which some provinces are experiencing in 1985-86 and the strong interest which they and other provinces receiving equalization have expressed in obtaining additional federal Government assistance.
The Government's overriding concern in approaching this question was to ensure that its response would be guided by the fundamental principle of fairness. It is the principle of fairness which this Government believes must underlie its relations with the provinces and which provinces expect of us. It was with a desire to be fair that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) discussed this question extensively with his provincial colleagues over the past several months and listened to representations from interested Canadians in an effort to come to a reasonable solution.
Before addressing the contents of the Bill, it may be useful to elaborate briefly on the circumstances which give rise to this projected decline in payments. In particular it should be understood that in none of the four cases do these declines in payments occur as a result of an expenditure cut or any other action taken by this Government. Rather, they are a reflection of the payments generated by the current equalization program which was enacted in 1982.
There is a particular reason for these declines in payments. This involves the expiry in 1985-86 of the special three-year transitional guarantee provision which was added to the equalization program in 1982. This provision authorized additional payments to provinces over and above their basic equalization entitlements in order to help smooth the shift from one formula to another and give provinces a period in which to adjust to the new system.
As it happened, events differed from what was anticipated in 1982. Basic equalization payments fell considerably below original expectations at the beginning of that year. This was largely as a consequence of the severe economic recession, the effects of which began to be felt soon after the new formula was adopted. At the same time, the transitional guarantee levels remained high because they were based on the growth of equalization payments in the pre-1982 period. As a result, a large gap developed between basic equalization payments which were lowered by the effect of the recession and the guaranteed transition levels which were not. The consequence was heavy reliance on the transition provision by the provinces receiving equalization. These transitional payments have totalled $2 billion over the past three years.
Those provinces faced with declines in payments made representations asking if something could be done to provide continuing additional assistance. The Provinces of New Brunswick and Newfoundland, like the other provinces, have also been concerned about their fiscal situations. These requests for assistance could not have come at a more difficult time for this Government. Having inherited the problem of a very massive deficit which is expected to total more than $34 billion for the year just ended, the federal Government is faced with serious

April 18, 1985
Supplementary Fiscal Equalization Payments
fiscal difficulties of its own. This enormously constrains what it is able to do.
The fact of the matter is that all Governments in Canada, both provincial and federal, are under severe financial pressure. In these circumstances the federal Government had to take very difficult decisions. First, should it do anything at all to provide support to the provinces whose equalization entitlements would decline significantly in 1985-86? Second, if anything could be done, should it be restricted to these provinces, or should something also be done for New Brunswick and Newfoundland, whose capacity to raise revenues is, generally speaking, not as strong as that of other provinces?
[DOT] (mo)
Bill C-39 sets out the Government's response to these questions. It reflects the decision to provide additional payments, to be called "supplementary equalization payments", and a decision that these payments should be made to all six provinces qualifying for equalization. These payments are fixed, lump sum amounts which are set out in the Bill and total $285 million.
The amounts of these payments in 1985-86 are as follows: Manitoba, $50 million; Quebec, $110 million; Nova Scotia, $20 million; Prince Edward Island, $5 million; New Brunswick, $20 million; and Newfoundland, $15 million. In the case of Manitoba, a further $65 million will be paid the following year because current estimates show a further decline in payments in 1986-87.
The amounts of these payments were derived in two ways- one for those provinces confronted with significant declines in equalization payments in 1985-86, and the other for the remaining provinces which received equalization. The first group consists of Manitoba, Quebec and Nova Scotia. In each case the payment to these provinces is based upon current estimates of the amount of additional equalization that each province would receive if its basic equalization entitlements over the next two years were protected by a "95 per cent floor". This provision already exists in the equalization formula for other provinces.
Let me be more specific. The equalization program now protects provinces against declines in payments from one year to the next in a way which varies with their capacity to raise revenues. The highest protection, the 95 per cent floor, is given to those provinces which are not as strong fiscally as others and ensures their payments will decline by no more than 5 per cent from one year to the next.
What the Government is doing in this Bill is giving Manitoba, Quebec and Nova Scotia the benefit of this 95 per cent floor for the purpose of making a lump sum payment which will assist them in the remaining two years of the current program. This payment is also based upon the latest estimates of each province's equalization entitlements.
The second group of provinces consists of Prince Edward Island, which is confronted with a small reduction in 1985-86, New Brunswick and Newfoundland. These provinces have the lowest capacity to raise revenues from taxation. The Government could not exclude them from additional payments being
made to provinces which are in relatively stronger fiscal positions.
Accordingly, the provinces in the second group will also receive lump sum supplementary equalization payments. Specifically, each will receive an amount which, in per capita terms, will equal the average per capita payments to Manitoba, Quebec and Nova Scotia. On this basis, Prince Edward Island will receive an additional $5 million; Newfoundland, $15 million; and New Brunswick, $20 million, all in 1985-86.
[DOT] (ms)

I have often had to explain the method used in calculating these payments, because people wonder why one amount is paid to one province and an entirely different amount to another province. The explanation is simple. The difference is due to the fact that the per capita value of the decline in payments varies according to province. It follows that the per capita value of supplementary equalization payments would be different in each province. For instance, Manitoba will suffer a much greater per capita decline than Quebec or Nova Scotia. For the same reasons, the per capita value of each payment will also differ from province to province.
In any case, payments to provinces that have suffered a considerable decline in their payments have all been fixed on the same basis. Payments to the other provinces were of course determined on a different basis, but that basis is identical for all three. Thus, the Government has done everything in its power to guarantee that supplementary equalization payments will be fair and equitable for the six provinces concerned.

The Government is also acting to ensure that the payments are made to provinces as quickly as possible. The Bill, therefore, provides that payments in 1985-86 will be made within 30 days of its passage. The additional payment to Manitoba will be made in the first month of the 1986-87 fiscal year.
These payments are substantial and should be of considerable assistance to these provinces. They are in addition to some $5.1 billion which the Government expects to make in regular equalization payments this year. Adding the supplementary payments together with estimated regular equalization entitlements, total payments in 1985-86 are expected to be as follows: Manitoba, $458 million; Quebec - which accounts for well over 50 per cent of all equalization payments - $2,920 million; Nova Scotia, $588 million; New Brunswick, $572 million; Newfoundland, $616 million and Prince Edward Island, $130 million. The new supplementary equalization payments will bring total federal expenditures on equalization in 1985-86 to approximately $5.3 billion. This is in addition to the very large amount which the federal Government also provides in transfers to provinces for such purposes as health care and post-secondary education.
Total cash transfers to provinces are expected to exceed $20 billion in 1985-86, accounting for close to 20 per cent or one-fifth of all federal expenditures. With the inclusion of the
April 18, 1985

value of federal income tax transfers to the provinces, the total reaches more than $27 billion.
Legislation is required to authorize the supplementary equalization payments because there is no existing basis upon which such additional payments can be made, nor is there any provision for these payments in the Main Estimates for 198586 or in the Government's present fiscal framework for 198687. The Government is not, through this legislation, attempting to address all of the questions which provinces and others may have about the equalization program. That is the function of the review of the program which takes place every five years and which will be getting underway shortly with a view to meeting the scheduled expiry of the current program in March, 1987.
The purpose of this Bill is to make fixed payments to Canada's less wealthy provinces to help carry them through the two remaining years of the arrangements. As I have said, these are payments which the Government did not have to make and which it is providing to provinces despite its own very serious financial position. While the amounts may not in all cases be as much as provinces had hoped to receive, they are the most that the Government is able to afford in light of its own serious financial situation. They have been calculated on a basis which is fair and reasonable.
In short, the decision has been taken in the spirit of cooperation and mutual understanding that this Government is endeavouring to develop with the provinces so that we may together build a stronger nation from coast to coast.
I earnestly encourage all Hon. Members to support this Bill.


Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to respond in a positive way to the Minister's invitation with respect to Bill C-39, but unfortunately, 1 cannot support this Bill, and, Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to make it quite clear at the beginning of my speech that the Official Opposition intends to oppose the passage of Bill C-39 because it believes that the Bill is, above all, inequitable for Quebec, unfair to Manitoba and inadequate for the Province of Nova Scotia.
During the few minutes 1 am allowed, I intend to explain why we are judging this Bill so severely and also to draw the attention of the public to the fact that in allocating the limited resources available to this Government, the Progressive Conservative Government has preferred to support the cash flow of the oil multinationals instead of supporting that of the provincial Treasuries.
I assume the Bill before the House today, like any other Bill, can be examined in a number of ways. In this particular case, and we have already had an example in the speech just made by the Minister, some Hon. Members will say that the shortfall experienced by several provinces as the equalization formula is applied in 1985-86 and 1986-87 is the result of mistakes made by the previous Government, and that Bill C-39
Supplementary Fiscal Equalization Payments
is an act of great generosity for which the Government deserves to be congratulated. That was exactly the tenor of the Minister's speech, which means I guessed right when 1 was preparing my notes, and it is probably the line of reasoning that will be followed by other speakers on the Government side.
Mr. Speaker, we in the Official Opposition maintain and will continue to maintain that in a democracy, the Parties that form the Government change from time to time, depending on the wishes of the electorate. However, the responsibility of those in power cannot be brushed aside by mere rhetoric, because a government, especially when it has a substantial majority, has the power to make changes. The best example of my premise that a government that wants to make changes can make them is the decision of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) who, supported herein by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), changed the taxes on the multinational oil companies so that in the years to come, these multinationals will be receiving from the federal Treasury a present worth $2.4 billion. Mr. Speaker, that was a very substantial change: giving $2.4 billion to the oil multinationals was not a decision made by a backbencher but by Ministers, and 1 would say by the Prime Minister himself. Mr. Speaker, it proves that when a government wants to make changes it can do so, even if it costs $2.4 billion. When the Government gave those $2.4 billion to the oil multinationals, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) did not protest that the public purse could not afford these presents to the multinationals. However, when the Minister of Finance announced on April 1 of this year that Bill C-39 would be tabled in the House, he said the supplementary payments could not be any higher and were the maximum this Government could spend, given the serious state of the Government's finances.
Mr. Speaker, some problems in this country are given more equal treatment than others. 1 find it hard to believe that the Federal Government has $2.4 billion to spare to refresh the cash flow of the oil multinationals and can find only $220 million to achieve a better balance of this country's wealth, the negligible amount it is giving to the provinces.
Before pursuing my detailed analysis of this Bill and its impact, 1 would like to say a few words about the line of reasoning followed by the Progressive Conservatives and the Minister of Finance himself, namely that the problems in applying the equalization formula in 1985-86 are to be blamed solely and entirely on the previous administration.
I shall, if I may, provide some historical context and we shall see whether, aside from the partisan rhetoric being dished up by the Government, there are other, more serious reasons, and to do so, we must go back a few years.
I am not suggesting that all decisions made by a Liberal Government are good and that all decisions made by a Progressive Conservative Government are bad, but I think that

April 18, 1985
Supplementary Fiscal Equalization Payments now and then, when one wants to raise a serious argument, there has to be some give and take.
In 1980-81, the Government advocated a new equalization formula after analyzing the fiscal arrangements for 1982-87. Under the new formula, equalization would apply to 33 instead of 29 revenue sources as had been the case until then. In addition, and this is significant, equalization would be based on the full value of provincial oil and gas revenue rather than on only 50 per cent as was done before. This broadening of revenue sources used to set the amount of equalization payments to the provinces would inevitably result in much higher equalization payments, quite obviously. Some people went so far as to claim that, in certain cases, one of Canada's richest provinces-Ontario-might eventually receive equalization payments under the new formula.
Since the new formula and the wider equalization basis would result in what appeared to be an overly sharp increase, a change was made in the way equalization applied to the various provinces-there were to be 33 instead of 29 revenue sources-and it was decided that equalization would be based on the average of the same per capita revenue sources of five provinces, namely Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, rather than on the national average. That is probably the major change in the equalization formula.
Since it is difficult to predict five or six years in advance the impact of such radical changes, the new legislation provided for a three-year special payment transition period to help the provinces adjust to the new formula and, more particularly, to have sufficient time to assess its consequences with respect to equalization payments. It was with that consideration in mind that the Government and the Minister of Finance introduced transitional payments which featured two elements, and I will have more to say about it later. As I just said, these transitional payments, which include two elements, were made in fiscal years 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85 to the provinces of Quebec, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. According to the information I have, only the Province of Newfoundland got more money under the new formula than it did under the old one, without even having to ask for interim payments.
Mr. Speaker, I might add that, at the close of that three-year experiment, regardless of the political Party in office in early 1985, it was bound to tackle the issue in an attempt to offset, if necessary, any untoward consequence of having done away with the transitional payment formula. That is exactly what happened, and negotiations began last summer, as the three-year agreement was coming to an end, to see how corrections could be made.
In all honesty, Mr. Speaker, can anyone blame a Government for acting objectively and playing it safe? Who can blame a Minister of Finance who wants to know where he is going before giving eternal guarantees? Besides, the formula adopted in 1981-82 did not set a deadline and, now that the
Constitution has been amended, the equalization formula would remain in force even though fiscal arrangements might be scheduled every five years. That is why transitional payments had been limited to three years, subject to review should adjustments be required.
Therefore, transitional equalization payments were limited just so the impact of the new formula could be measured. Anyone familiar with the complexity of equalization payment computations readily appreciates why the transitional payment formula had to be given a limited lifetime so that stock could be taken.
Having been directly involved, I recall that the federal Government had decided to revamp the whole tax structure in the early 70s-the famous tax reform of the early 70s. The Government had suggested a tax reform and some of the provinces were worried, especially those that have collection agreements and must use the same tax basis.
[DOT] (M30)
In view of the difficulty of forecasting the actual results of such a basic change, the Federal Government had at that time guaranteed the provinces that they would be compensated for any loss if the new taxation system were to produce effects totally different from those under the former system. After five years, the complexity of the calculations was such that it was difficult to carry out the necessary assessments, especially because of the changes made by certain provinces and other changes introduced on a yearly basis to the taxation system by the federal authorities. It had therefore become very difficult to continue to apply this guarantee provision. However, the same formula had already been applied under identical or similar circumstances.
With respect to equalization, as I have already said, the Federal Government wanted to move cautiously and this led people to believe that the transitional payments would have to be cut short lest the new formula or changes in the economic situation should have much more far-reaching results than expected. I do not see why the former Government should be blamed for having wanted to move cautiously so it would not now have to face up to its own responsibilities.
Experience has shown that at least three provinces were penalized by the new formula, but only beginning with the year 1985-86, and that these provinces would lose substantial amounts if provisional payments were discontinued on their behalf. Those provinces are Quebec, Manitoba and Nova Scotia. Mr. Speaker, I said at the beginning of my speech that we of the Official Opposition would oppose this Bill because it is unjust to Quebec, unfair to Manitoba and inadequate in the case of Nova Scotia.
If I may, I will try to use the figures I have here to show, first, why Bill C-39 is inadequate in the case of Nova Scotia. In 1984-85, the Province of Nova Scotia received $600 million in equalization payments, and this included a payment of $72
April 18, 1985

million under the provisional formula. As everyone knows, their transitional payments consist of two amounts. First, there is the provisional guarantee which assures an increase in minimum equalization payments compared with 1981-82. For instance, while I do not have the figures for Nova Scotia, under this part of the transitional payments for Quebec, the increase amounted to 11.7 per cent in 1982-83, 7 per cent in
1983-84, and 3.3 per cent in 1984-85. The other portion of these transitional payments is related to the basic formula, plus the guarantee I have just mentioned, and if there is a shortfall between this amount and the amount produced by the old formula, this shortfall is made up, and the two portions added together make up the transitional payments.
For Nova Scotia, Bill C-39 simply makes up the shortfall for 1985-86 and leaves the Province at the mercy of a decision by the Federal Government for the year 1986-87. Nova Scotia will have to come back on its knees to ask the Minister of Finance for what should be coming to it in 1986-87.
I would like to recall at this point, Mr. Speaker, that equalization payments are unconditional transfers to the provinces and that they must be made according to an equitable formula which does not put the provinces at the mercy of any arbitrary decision of the Canadian Government. If Bill C-39 remains in its present form, 1 maintain that it will not meet the very criteria of equalization and that it will be seen as a totally inadequate settlement for Nova Scotia.
If Bill C-39 is inadequate where Nova Scotia is concerned, the matter is even more complicated for Manitoba and the Bill is unfair to that province. Following the implementation of the new formula, the Province of Manitoba has received in 198283, $439 million, including $169 million in transitional payments, still consisting of the two portions I have already mentioned. In 1983-84, it received $466 million, including $163 million in transitional payments. In 1984-85, Manitoba received $479 million, including $138 million in transitional payments. With these transitional payments coming to an end, the equalization payments for Manitoba will go down from $479 million to $407 million, with a loss of $72 million. Even if we take into account another payment, this one provided for under Section 4(6) of the Fiscal Arrangements Act passed in 1982 which specifies that, for a province with a provincial per capita income in excess of 75 per cent of the national income, equalization entitlement cannot decrease by more than 15 per cent from one year to the next, as I say, even when this payment is taken into account, the loss for Manitoba is still more considerable. This loss figured at $72 million in 1985-86 would have been still more significant in 1986-87 since the payments specified for the last of the fiscal arrangements were supposed to be only $377 million, or $102 million short of the amount received in 1984-85.
The proposal contained in Bill C-39 shows how unfair this is to Manitoba, and the payments which will be made to the Province under Bill C-39 will be far from sufficient to make up
Supplementary Fiscal Equalization Payments the difference. Bill C-39 is simply a band aid measure and it should be amended to correct the injustice which will befall Manitoba. I think that in the case of Manitoba, the situation is even more obvious than that in Nova Scotia, since the figures and projections available for 1986-87 already show that it will be penalized, whereas in Nova Scotia payments could be inadequate, depending on the results of the economic development in that province.
Mr. Speaker, if Bill C-39 is inadequate for Nova Scotia and unfair for Manitoba, the withdrawal of temporary payments becomes an injustice as far as Quebec is concerned, an inequity which should be strongly exposed. All those who have followed the discussions over the years remember that Quebec has always disagreed about the equalization formula and especially about the withdrawal of temporary payments formula effective in the present financial year. As early as the first months of 1981, the pro forma statistics and projections provided by the Department of Finance in Quebec indicated what was going to occur in 1985-86 and 1986-87. The government of Canada stated that the temporary payments provided an adequate guarantee to Quebec, which was the case since those payments covered the losses and were even increased from one year to another. The government of Canada maintained that the temporary payments provided Quebec with an adequate guarantee to try honestly the new formula and, under the circumstances, for each of the years 1982-83, 198384 and 1984-85, the temporary payments varied for Quebec between $350 and $400 million. The figures are clear and the evidence is sufficiently specific. It indicates that the fears of Quebec were well-grounded and this is why Bill C-39 should permanently correct the distortion or at least extend until new negotiations begin in 1987 the enforcement of the clause dealing with the temporary payments due in 1984-85.
I will come back to the matter later because I would like to indicate to the minister right now that if subsection (4) covering the guarantee of temporary payments for 1984-85 is enforced and the percentage remains at one third, the equalization payments made to Quebec in 1985-86 and 1986-87 will only be increased by 3 per cent, which is below the present inflation rate. And it could not be said that those are extravagant payments.
Mr. Speaker, in 1983-84, the temporary payments, as I said, amounted to some $400 million, $399 million on a total of $2,976.6 million. The following year, in 1984-85, the temporary payments amounted to $392 million on a total equalization sum of $3 billion.
When I say that Bill C-39 is unfair for Quebec, you will understand, I hope, why I say so. Indeed, in 1985-86, according to the statistics disclosed by the Minister of Finance on April 2 last, and I know how qualified are the officials computing those figures and I do not doubt that if there are some mistakes of a few hundred dollars, the general tendency and the basic issue are surely correct.

April 18, 1985
Supplementary Fiscal Equalization Payments
In 1984 and 1985, that province has received $3,074 million in equalization payments, and in 1985-1986, that amount will drop to $2,784 million, a loss of $290 million. In 1986-87, according to the estimates, Quebec will get $2,902 million, a reduction of $172 million compared with 1984-85.
In view of the normal growth which should take place from one year to the next, Quebec's loss in the area of equalization payments is quite significant, and Bill C-39 will compensate Quebec for only 15 per cent of its losses in this area. And this, because of the ending of the transitional adjustment payment formula.
If I suggest that the solution proposed in Bill C-39 is unfair for Quebec, Mr. Speaker, it is also because the effects of the formula over the forthcoming years, not the past ones, will not be the same for every province which benefit from equalization payments.
According to the analysis prepared and published by the Quebec Department of Finance, an analysis which to my knowledge has never been contested, it is clear what this formula has meant for all the provinces: an unfair situation for Quebec which is quite different from the other provinces.
Let us take the case of Newfoundland ... I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I am trying to find my table. I have the figures somewhere else. I am going to quote them. I cannot find my table. In Newfoundland, over the five years the formula will apply, that is three real years for which the figures are already available and the following two years, that province will receive $100 million or $102 million more than under the old formula. In the case of Newfoundland, therefore, the equalization payment formula adopted in 1982 has been far from unfair, since it provided the province with more money than the old formula. And, unless I am mistaken, there have been no need for transitional adjustment payments.
For Prince Edward Island, for the three real years and the two years to come, the province will gain $52 million. Therefore, the formula is not unfair to that province; in fact, the new formula 1982-87 gives it a certain advantage over the 1977-82 formula.
In Nova Scotia, for the five years, the gain is $233 million, but it is mostly concentrated over the first three years because of the interim payments, but the situation becomes very drastic and difficult over the last two years.
In New Brunswick, if we compare again the results for the five year period, three real years plus two estimated years, the gain of the new formula compared to the old formula is $65 million. The formula, therefore, is not unfair for New Brunswick.
In Manitoba, because of the interim payments, the new formula has generated gains over the first three years, but with the ending of the transitional payments formula, the loss over
the last two years will reach some $172 million, which will certainly prove unbearable for the Public Treasury of Manitoba. But for the five years altogether, the formula has still given positive results.
Quebec will be a net loser, because even taking into account the $110 million the Minister has just mentioned and which will be paid under Bill C-39, the net loss for the five years under the new formula compared with the old formula will total $750 million, most of it in 1985-86 and 1986-87, because of the ending of the transitional payments. Quebec is the only province which will be faced with a net loss over the five year period under the new formula as compared to payments that would have been paid under the old formula.
I apologize, Mr. Speaker, for my extensive use of statistics, but as you know this is a complex matter which needs more than words to be properly dealt with, and all through my speech, I have tried to demonstrate with supporting figures that Bill C-39 does not make sense and that after applying the new equalization formula for the last three years, experience clearly shows that if the transition payments I mentioned earlier which the province of Quebec received in the last two years are not maintained in 1985-86 and 1986-87, that formula becomes totally unjust for Quebec, more so from this year on, as I said earlier, because those famous transition payments are abolished.
Therefore I ask the government, the Minister, to delay the passing of this bill for two reasons. I do not make this request lightly. First, the Prime Minister of Canada, the head of government, stated publicly, after the tabling or rather the announcement made in this House by the Minister of Finance, that he was willing to carry on negotiations with the government of Quebec. Therefore, in view of the situation, if the word of the Prime Minister is to be taken seriously and if it means anything, I believe that the government has no right to use its majority in this House to undermine the additional negociations which have been announced by the Prime Minister himself. So we should wait, in my opinion, until further negotiations have been held between the Minister of Finance of Quebec and the Prime Minister of Canada, to see whether Bill C-39 could not be improved upon, right now, because once this bill is passed, even days before a budget is tabled in Quebec and weeks before one is tabled in Ottawa, I do not expect the Minister of Finance or the Minister of State for Finance to come back three weeks later with another bill to change the payments that have just been announced and barely represent 15 per cent of the losses Quebec will incur.
Mr. Speaker, I say that we must postpone the passage of this Bill and give the Federal Government a chance to check whether my information that extending the transitional payments formula applied to Quebec in 1984-85 ... if this formula were to be extended in 1985-86 and 1986-87 ... to check whether the figures I gave, indicating that the increase in equalization over these two years would be only 3 per cent. If
April 18, 1985

that is the case, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that an increase in equalization below the inflation rate, and the fact that the Minister of Finance told us recently, only a few days ago, that his budget would be inflationary, so that the inflation rate will certainly rise above 3.7 per cent, since that is where it is today... This means that an increase in equalization in 1985-86 over 1984-85, and in 1986-87 over 1985-86, an increase of 3 per cent, would be below the inflation rate, and I think we should postpone the passage of Bill C-39 to find out, from the negotiations referred to by the Prime Minister, whether the figures I referred to are correct. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me it would be only fair to have the guarantee formula for the last two years of fiscal arrangements, as it refers to equalization, maintained. During the first three years, experience has shown that in the case of Quebec, the transitional payments were indispensable and that for the last two years, the loss will be enormous: $750 million. No government can afford to experience a shortfall in revenue of this magnitude. I would therefore ask the Government to postpone consideration of the Bill to a later date. I am not going to propose a motion, because I do not want to prolong debate unduly, but I do wish to appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lanthier), who is a Member from Quebec. As Parliamentary Secretary, he most certainly has access to the statistics and figures that were released by the Government of Quebec. If those figures are incorrect, I wish someone would point out any substantial errors. If we look at the results of the new formula, I say it is unfair to Quebec if transitional payments are not maintained, because even if transitional payments are maintained at the 1984-85 level, that is, by keeping one-third of the rate of growth over previous years, even if transitional payments are maintained at one-third, what does this give the other provinces per capita? The Minister referred to payments per capita. Leaving aside Bill C-39, this would mean that Newfoundland, for instance, would be favoured with an increase of $175 per capita under the new formula, over the old formula.
If we take Prince Edward Island, new formula over old, not including additional payments under Bill C-39, this amount is $422; Nova Scotia: $250 per capita; New Brunswick: $93, if we consider the 122 addition; Manitoba: $6, and this province is the worst off and because the transitional payments formula has been scrapped, this becomes negative, but Quebec is the only province where per capita payments have dropped $113, as a result of the expiry of transitional payments. By these payments beeing reinstated for the last two years, this gap can be corrected and Quebec's per capita payments can be brought up to the provincial average.
I wanted to mention these inequities, not necessarily to make a political point but to point out that I do not understand the "equities" referred to by the Minister in his per capita reports. I read the statement by the Minister of Finance, I
Supplementary Fiscal Equalization Payments examined it and I could not understand the meaning of the word "equity" in terms of the application of Bill C-39. Upon further analysis, I also realized-I had a chance to read what was said by the Quebec Minister of Finance in the National Assembly on April 2 of this year-that I was not the only one who did not understand and who objected.
This is what the Quebec Minister of Finance said in the National Assembly on April 2 of this year, and I am quoting Mr. Duhaime: "I am very disappointed," he said, in referring to the announcement made by the Minister of Finance, "because the Federal Government has obviously refused to recognize the inequities generated by the new program vis-avis Quebec". He also said: "I am surprised and in fact astonished at the complete absence of logic in the arrangement provided in Bill C-39. This arrangement provides for payments to provinces which, accordingly to the Federal Government's own forecast, will not experience any drop in their equalization entitlements in 1985-86 and which, furthermore, have greatly benefited from the changes made in the equalization program in 1982." Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago I explained how the new equalization formula had been beneficial except for Manitoba and Nova Scotia, for the last two years and in varying degrees, and that generally, the equalization formula adopted in 1981-82 had benefited all provinces except Quebec. As I said before, in the case of Quebec, it is because the Government has refused to extend transitional payments that were included in the formula in Bill C-97 that was adopted by this House. All Canadian provinces receiving equalization payments have benefited in various degrees which I indicated, with the exception of Manitoba for the last two years, and this was also because the transitional payments formula was dropped, but on the whole, even Manitoba has received more money under the new formula than it would have received under the old one. Only Quebec has been severely penalized by the fact that transitional payments were dropped, even allowing for Bill C-39, and I maintain that there is an inequity here that must be remedied.
And obviously, the Minister of Finance can try... At the outset of my remarks, I alluded to the comments of the Minister of Finance concerning the ability to pay, it was the best he could do. Things have to be set in the proper perspective, and I want to caution the public as well as the Parliamentary Secretary-I know he is a serious man and wants to uphold the interests of Quebec, I am sure-and the other Quebec Members in the House. As a group or as a Party you might try to blame the former Government. That will be easy. You will have to take a bow, your constituents will congratulate you, but Quebec will not even get a nickel. Again I say that Quebec was not penalized under the three-year formula including transitional payments, but from this day on, it becomes the responsibility of this administration, the Progressive Conservative Government. Blame the former Government if you want-as I said, you will have to take a bow-but that

April 18, 1985
Supplementary Fiscal Equalization Payments is not going to redress the injustice and inequity done to Quebec by dropping transitional payments. I hope the Minister will get together with the Minister of Finance, the Parliamentary Secretary and the other Quebec Members who might take time to consider carefully the full implication of eliminating transitional payments beginning in 1985-86; get together, raise the issue in caucus, your Quebec caucus, and you will see that it does not make sense, that transitional payments must be kept in the law. I suggest that they be maintained at the
1984-85 level and, if you Figure it out, you will find out that Quebec would not even get the full $750 million it stands to lose. It would be less than $750 million, but definitely more than the $110 million you recommend. As I see it, it would amount to something like $400 million or $450 million. But even at that, if the Progressive Conservative Government and the Members from Quebec examine the matter properly, and I urge them to do so, it is clear that with this formula Quebec will get less than any of the other provinces, on a per capita or nominal dollar basis, even if transitional payments are maintained at the 1984-85 level.
That is why 1 strongly urge the House to reconsider Bill C-39 in light of the facts I have just mentioned and keeping in mind that the Prime Minister of Canada said that the door was still open. However, once Bill C-39 has been given second reading, gone through committee stage and been stamped by the Senate, the door will be closed, padlock and all, and we will have to wait until 1987 before reviewing this matter.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this is a basic question, a question of equity. Now that the Government of Quebec is considering the possibility of making proposals to the Canadian Government so that Quebec might become a full-fledged member of the Canadian Confederation, I think that if we look at Bill C-39 in that context, it is important and even imperative to reintroduce the transitional guarantee payments for the last two years. This way at least the equalization formula would not be a source of inequity as it is now, even though Bill C-39 will mean more money, but as a whole there would be more fairness, and I think that Quebec would then be on the same footing as the other provinces. Quebec is not seeking hand-outs or payments to which it has no right, it simply wants to have equitable per capita payments, with due consideration for the economic situation as described in the equalization formula whose principle is now entrenched in the Canadian Constitution.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I first want to indicate that I am glad that the Government has moved to increase the funding to some of the have-not provinces in Canada. I will say a few more words which are not nearly as complimentary, but I do congratulate it for implementing a move toward fairness in this country.
In doing so, I think we have to realize where the real blame belongs. That blame should lie with the previous Liberal Government. In 1981-82, the Liberal Government of the time
knew that the equalization legislation it was bringing in would have the result of decreasing the amount of money that certain provinces would be receiving at this time. The transition payments about which the last Liberal speaker spoke so much were a step to cover the situation for a three-year period only. Liberal Government Members of the time knew that as of April 1, 1985, some provinces including Manitoba and Quebec would be receiving less money than they received in the previous year. That was something about which we and the Conservative Opposition Party told the Liberal Government. We do not want to say we told you so, but that is obviously the situation. The Liberal Government knowingly cut funding to some of the have-not provinces in this nation.
I do not think we can be completely nice to the Government of the day, and you would not expect me to be, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Why not?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Some Conservative back-benchers are asking why not. The reason I cannot be completely nice to them throughout my speech is that it would be intellectually dishonest to do so. We do realize that the Conservative Government, when it was first elected, had no intention of moving on the equalization issue.


Mr. Peterson:: You don't know that.


Rodney Edward Murphy: We do know that because the Minister left his briefing notes in the City of Winnipeg. Those notes were not left around on purpose. An unkind wag said that the Minister left his briefs in Winnipeg and that his office tried to tape up the situation. Seriously speaking, what that did point out to the people of Manitoba, Quebec, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island was that the Government had no intention of moving on this issue. It is a fact that a number of meetings were held at the request of provincial Governments in order to get this Government to move. I have already congratulated the Government for moving at least a step in the right direction.
So that the people of Canada and particularly the people of the provinces affected know the situation, it is necessary for me to go into it in a bit more detail. The legislation before us at this time does not provide the have-not provinces with the same amount of money they received last year. It provides them with only 95 per cent of the previous year's funding from the federal Government. That does not even allow for inflation. If we allow for the increase in the cost of living and for the inflation that exists in this country, those provinces are obviously receiving less than 95 per cent of what they received last year.
In the second year of this Bill, although the Government speaks of the fact that Manitoba will receive an extra $65 million, Manitoba will only be receiving at most 95 per cent of what it will receive this year. There will be a downward incline with Manitoba First receiving 95 per cent of last year's allowance and then the next year receiving 95 per cent of this year's allowance. There is no guarantee in this legislation that if the
April 18, 1985

federal financial figures change, Manitoba will receive the full 95 per cent. By including a block amount of $65 million for next year, the Government seems to be indicating that if the economic situation in this nation changes, Manitoba is guaranteed only the $65 million even though it may end up being only 85 per cent or 90 per cent of what it receives at the present time.
When we get into committee, I would be happy if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) or his designate would indicate the Government's intentions for next year. Is this $65 million for the Province of Manitoba the only guarantee for the people of that province or will there be some indication that there will be a further piece of legislation if it is necessary at this time next year?
We also have problems with the very concept of funding that is 95 per cent of what was received in the previous year. In the original legislation that was passed in 1982, the intent was that the 95 per cent floor existed not for those provinces that were in further need but for those provinces that might improve drastically their economic situation within the nation. For example, it was thought optimistically that perhaps Nova Scotia and Newfoundland would have more jobs and more provincial revenues as a result of oil production in those provinces. The Government of the day indicated that if that were to happen, it would not drastically cut the equalization money overnight but would guarantee a floor of 95 per cent of the money received in the previous year.
That was a very reasonable attitude. It is an attitude I wish the Government would take when dealing with unemployment insurance and welfare recipients who begin to earn salaries after they have been laid off or unemployed for a certain length of time. There should be some guarantees for those people when they go back to work. The concept existed and it was a good concept but it was never meant for those provinces that had the same need or could demonstrate increased need.
With this legislation, the Government has taken that same concept of a floor which was only to be applied for provinces that were improving their situations and has indicated that that is the most that provinces that are in worse situations will receive. The document that was left in Manitoba by the Minister of Finance indicated that Manitoba was the province that faced the most difficult situation with regard to equalization yet the Government is only moving to provide 95 per cent of the money the province received in the previous year. I think the Hon. Member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Clark) recognizes the truth of that. For the year 1985-86, the Government is not guaranteeing any more than 95 per cent of what the Province of Manitoba received last year, and for the year 1986-87, the Government is only providing 95 per cent of what is to be received in 1985-86. That is the actual situation.
Provinces that can demonstrate at least the same degree of need or increased need should receive at least 100 per cent of the money they received last year. As well, we should take into consideration the increase in inflation and the GNP when making funding awards to those provinces. To use the Minister's term, it is hard to talk about fairness when actually
Supplementary Fiscal Equalization Payments decreasing the amount of money those have-not provinces will receive.
The Government has implemented a compromise between the deplorable situation left us by the previous Liberal Government and what is just and fair in this nation. A compromise is quite often what happens when we have a fix-up piece of legislation like that which is before us at this time. That is understandable. However, in seeking this compromise, I think the Government and the people of Canada would have been better served if the Government had recognized that the provinces should have received fully 100 per cent of what they received the previous year.
I questioned the Minister of Finance a number of times about this situation prior to his indication that he would finally move on supplementary equalization. In one of his answers in the House he talked about the fact that the situation of the federal Government could even be worse than that of the have-not provinces. Obviously that is ludicrous. The federal Government has a huge deficit and certainly it has to look at that deficit in making its plans for the future. However, somehow the concept that the citizens of the have-not provinces must make the sacrifice does not make sense. If we want fairness, then the cuts should affect all ten provinces, not just the have-not ones. If the Government is to cut services, then those services should be cut throughout the land. It is not that I am advocating that as a solution but, in fairness, to take money from the have-not provinces because the federal Government has a deficit is not a very fair or just solution.
The idea of the Minister of Finance of cutting services-and that is what he is doing, even in this compromise Bill-to the have-not provinces works against the very concept of equalization. Equalization is enshrined in our Constitution. It is accepted as a fundamental principle of the nation. Any tinkering or lessening of the redistributive nature of that concept works against equality.
Equalization, although it is a very long word, has a very simple meaning. By definition, it is a recognition that Canadians, regardless of where they live in this land of ours, should have a certain level of services provided to them. That is what equalization is all about. It means that if Prince Edward Island is poorer than Ontario, things will not be equal- certainly a rich province like Alberta will be able to provide certain services and benefits to its citizens which P.E.I. and Nova Scotia cannot match-however, at the same time the citizens of P.E.I., Nova Scotia and Quebec should have the same basic level of services as any other Canadian. That is why this legislation is in front of us. That is why this concept is in the Constitution. That is why it is so important to many people in the land.
As part of the equalization program, we have agreed that the federal Government would take money from its tax sources and give that money to the have-not provinces. Of course we all debate what is the most appropriate formula, whether it should be a ten-province average of economic ability or a

April 18, 1985
Supplementary Fiscal Equalization Payments
six-province average of economic ability. We all disagree over what should be in the package, what taxes should be considered, or what potentials of the various provinces should be considered. However, I have never heard anyone argue against the principle that, if the provinces which provide services under the provincial sphere in our federal state do not have the funds themselves, the federal Government has an obligation to provide the funds so that the provinces can provide services to their citizens. In other situations which are not under provincial jurisdiction, often the federal Government provides direct services or tied funding, whether it be in medicare, hospitalization or something of that nature. For native and Indian people living on reserves, the federal Government either provides funds to the bands or directly provides services to the people.
It is interesting to discover today that the Government, in the paper which is presumably before Cabinet this morning, has decided to cut back funding to the reserves of the nation. Previously the federal Liberal Government decided to cut funding to the have-not provinces because of the economic situation. Now the federal Government is looking at a paper which indicates that for fiscal reasons it will be cutting back on money which is presently going to Indian people on the reserves of this land. I think the same principle is involved. This works against the very principle of equalization.
I am sure the Hon. Member for Brandon-Souris and others who are in the House at this time have visited reserves. They have seen no water supply or sewage systems, that the schools are quite often deplorable, that the federal Government program for building new schools is way behind, that the housing situation is completely inadequate, that there is a building backlog and has been a backlog for years, that the roads are almost never paved-in some areas of my riding there are no roads-and that the recreational facilities for young people in these communities are basically non-existent. If the federal Government goes ahead and takes the advice of the overview committee on Indian affairs of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen), it will decrease any concept of equal services in this nation. That is not acceptable. I know that this matter does not deal directly with the legislation before us, but it deals with the principle of the legislation. If it is to cut back on funding to the provinces and to cut back on services to the reserves, the Government is saying that it will increase inequality in the nation. That is what is happening.
As I have said before, the Bill itself is an improvement over what we inherited from the federal Liberals. However, the principle behind the Government's move shows a reduction in services. The paper which is before Cabinet today also shows the same principle, that a reduction in services is behind the thinking of the Government of the day. If the Government needs more dollars to decrease the deficit-and it does-and if the Government needs more dollars to provide increased services, not decreased ones-and it does-it should make sure that all Canadians pay their fair share.
In the last election campaign we talked about a minimum tax to those people who were not paying any income taxes and about the need for tax reform. In the House we asked the
Conservative Government to re-establish on a short-term basis the cuts in the levels of taxation paid by those people who receive the most. It is ironic that in the very same year that the Liberal federal Government cut back in equalization when it brought in legislation, it decreased the percentage of income taxes paid by people with the higher incomes. It was deliberately so. It said that it would cut 9 per cent off the income tax paid by those who make the most, 7 per cent off those who make fairly high salaries, 6 per cent and 5 per cent, on a sliding scale. What this meant is that the more one made, the more one saved in terms of actual income taxes paid. When the Liberal Government cut services to the have-not provinces, it also cut the amount of tax and percentage of taxes paid by those people who received and made the most in this nation. That is not fairness. To provide the dollars the federal Government needs, it should put those taxes back to the levels they were at in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Money can be raised from the people who have money. It should not cut services to those who need them the most.
It is obvious to Hon. Members on all sides of the House that the corporations are also in a situation where they are not paying their fair share of taxes. For that matter, it is evident that corporations are paying less and less, as time goes by, as a percentage of the total income tax collected. At one time we had virtual parity. Individuals, through income tax, paid about 50 per cent of the money received by the federal Government and the corporations paid the other 50 per cent. What has happened over the years is that the percentage paid by individuals-and not always the richest individuals-has gone up to 75 per cent of the money received by the federal Government through income tax, and the corporations' share has gone to approximately 25 per cent or 27 per cent. So by increasing the tax loopholes, the tax depreciations and all the rest of it, corporations are paying less and individuals-usually with low incomes-are paying more in terms of the total amount of money which is coming in to the coffers of the Government.
I see that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) is in the House. One of the interesting things which has happened with her so-called Western Accord is that there are going to be more profits made by companies like Texaco which did little in the way of exploration over the last little while.


Mr. Brisco:: What about jobs?


Rodney Edward Murphy: I will talk about jobs as well. It is the case that Texaco did almost no research or exploration in this country but because of the new formula negotiated by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources it is going to get a heck of a lot of money which is not going to be coming into the coffers of the people of Canada.
The problem is that there are certain people in this country who are not paying their fair share. The corporations are not paying their fair share. There is no talk about the windfall
April 18, 1985

profit tax on the profits Texaco is going to receive as a result of this Western Accord. This Government quite honestly can say, "We have a huge deficit and we are not getting much money in". It should take the money from those who can afford it, from companies like Texaco which did nothing to receive this windfall profit. All it did was it failed to do any research or exploration, but it is going to make the biggest windfall profit of any of the oil companies as a result of the new formula negotiated by the Minister. That is ridiculous. At the same time this Government is saying it cannot afford to give the same amount of money to the have-not provinces as those provinces received in previous years. Inflation is with us, costs have gone up, and this Government is saying, "The most we can give you, Manitoba or Quebec, is 95 per cent of what you received in previous years". That has to be ludicrous.
Yesterday was a very important day, Mr. Speaker, for this nation. It was equality day. April 17, 1985 was the date when the equality provisions of the Charter of Rights were supposed to come into effect. We know that nothing is going to happen overnight but it was a very important day. The Constitution has been amended as of yesterday concerning those sections which deal with equality. But it only deals with equality in terms of legal rights. What we are talking about today in this House is equality in terms of economic rights.
We have recognized as well in our Constitution that it is essential that all Canadians, whether they live in Nova Scotia, Quebec, Manitoba or elsewhere, receive equal services, at least to a certain degree. We cannot provide complete economic equality in this country because of the federal-provincial system we have. We cannot say that everybody everywhere in this country is going to receive exactly the same types of services. That is an impossibility in a federal state. But we have said that if a person is a Canadian, regardless of where he or she lives in Canada, he or she is entitled to a certain basic level of services. That is what equalization is part of. Where the provinces do not have the money, the federal Government is supposed to contribute some money towards paying for those basic services. That is what it is all about, Mr. Speaker. I would hope that in thinking about equality day yesterday, this Government would be a bit more generous.


Miss Carney:: Where was your leader on equality day? He wasn't in the House.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Here is the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who occasionally visits this place-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Hylton Brisco: Oh, come on! Look at the record.


Rodney Edward Murphy: -deciding that our leader has to be here. I am not going to be deviated from what is a very important point. I think that if anyone looks back over the record they will find that our fight for a Charter of Rights was not supported by the Conservative Party at that time. So let us not hear any crap about who fought for equality provisions in the
Supplementary Fiscal Equalization Payments Charter. Remember that the Conservative Party, and most of the Conservative Governments across this land-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to get back to the Bill, please.


Mrs. Mailly:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) on a point of order.


Claudy Mailly: I believe that the word used by the Hon. Member is unparliamentary. I would like to have a ruling on this, and if this word is indeed unparliamentary, I would like it to be withdrawn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I shall take this point of order under advisement and make a ruling in a few moments.


Claudy Mailly: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) may continue.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, if I did indeed use a word which is unparliamentary, I certainly will retract it and you can find out whether I did when you have a chance to check the rules.
The point I am making is that yesterday was a very important occasion, equality day. Yet we also have within our Constitution the equalization provisions. I would hope that this Government would recognize the significance of yesterday by amending this legislation in order not to provide just 95 per cent funding to the provinces in terms of money that they will receive next year and the year following vis-a-vis the money received in the past, but rather move to provide those provinces with at least an equal amount of money, at least 100 per cent of the money, that they received in years previous.
I have said earlier that this legislation is basically a fix-up of the deplorable situation we have faced in the past, and that there is a possibility that we are going to need a piece of fix-up legislation one year hence unless the Minister of Finance is willing to make significant moves when this Bill goes to the committee. I hope the Minister of Finance will make the necessary moves to be completely fair.
1 would also hope that when this Government looks at the next five-year term, the 1987-1992 term, it will make sure that we do not have the same situation in which the Liberal Party left us, a situation similar to that when the Liberal federal Government of that day forced through equalization legislation which was completely unfair and was pushed through without the consent of most of the provinces. It was never a piece of legislation which could produce equality in this country; it was a piece of legislation which we all knew would result in the unfair and difficult situation which we face today. We

April 18, 1985
Supplementary Fiscal Equalization Payments have this legislation in front of us today because in 1982 the federal Liberal Government of that day decided to create inequality through its equalization legislation. We are now doing a fix-up and compromise. I recognize that the Government is moving in the right direction. All I say to the Hon. Member for Brandon-Souris and other Hon. Members is, let us make it fair. Let us make it at least what the provinces should have received last year.
I do hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Government will move quickly to start the process to provide real equality when we negotiate the next five-year period.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: After having studied the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly), the Chair rules that the words mentioned by the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) are not unparliamentary.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Then, obviously, I will not retract them, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I shall resume the debate with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lanthier).


Mr. Claude Lanthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to authorize the Government to provide certain provinces with supplementary equalization payments, that is payments in addition to those already allowed to six provinces under the Canadian equalization payment program. As this program is one of the major features of our federal system, I would first like to examine its principles. I shall then explain why we have to consider allowing supplementary payments, and especially why the amounts provided for under this Bill represent an adequate solution to the problems faced by some provinces.
The purpose of equalization payments is to have all the provinces in a financial position such that they will be able to offer comparable public services at comparable taxation levels. This equalization program has received wide support since its implementation in 1957. All the provinces, including the three westernmost provinces, which have not obtained any payments for many years, and Ontario, which has never obtained any, are in favour or this program. Thanks to this support, we were able to entrench the principle of equalization in our Canadian Constitution. This means that equalization is now part of our national heritage and we have every reason to be proud of it.
It should be noted that equalization payments have always been unconditional. They do not aim at making provincial public services consistent or equal all across the country, but rather to allow the financially disadvantaged provinces to offer, only if they wish to do so, public services at a level deemed to be adequate as compared with that in wealthier provinces. As the provinces can dispose of these amounts with
absolute freedom, it may be concluded that equalization substantially reinforces the financial independence of the less-favoured provinces.
Equalization payments have become quite considerable through the years. In 1957-58, when the program was implemented, they amounted to $140 million. This year, they are estimated at over $5 billion. One of the provinces which has benefited the most from this program is our own Province of Quebec. From 1980-81 to 1984-85, equalization payments to our Province increased from just over $2 billion to $3 billion. During the last three years, equalization payments have made up between 13 and 15 per cent of the total revenue of the Quebec Government.
Mr. Speaker, the Bill we have been asked to support tends to add a supplement to what we pay under the equalization program. Why this supplement? For the first time since the program was implemented, some provinces will have their entitlement to equalization reduced without their capacity to collect taxes being increased. This reduction, which affects mostly Nova Scotia, Quebec and Manitoba, is due to the fact that a special provision, called the transitional guarantee, expired last March 31. This provision is not an integral element of the equalization formula. Rather, it is a special and virtually temporary mechanism which has been developed to facilitate the transition from the old formula, which expired in March 1982, to the formula being applied since then. Indeed, this is why this mechanism was developed as a transitional measure to apply only during the first three years of applying the new formula.
Therefore, what is at issue is not the equalization formula itself, but a special provision expiring at the end of the year
1984-	85. When this provision was developed in 1982, it was thought that its expiry would not cause any decrease in the entitlement to equalization payments. However, this forecast was based on the assumption that the rate of inflation, as well as the increase in provincial revenue subject to equalization, would be comparable to those at the turn of the last decade. Naturally, the recent recession invalidated this assumption. What happened is that the decrease in the inflation rate which slowed down the growth of revenues subject to equalization, also slowed down the growth of basic equalization payments, that is the payments determined under the original formula and excluding the transitional guarantee. The basic equalization payments have therefore been lower since 1982 than had been expected. However, the amounts paid under the transitional guarantee have been much higher, since they have totalled nearly $2 billion over three years, or eight times what was forecast in 1982.
In view of the foregoing, one can rightfully say that the federal government is in no way obliged, legally or otherwise, to compensate the reduction in equalization payments for
1985-	86. However, for the sake of promoting a better climate of continuous federal-provincial cooperation, the government
April 18, 1985

has committed itself to contribute $285 million in supplementary equalization payments to the six provinces which are currently qualifying for equalization. Of this amount, Quebec will get $ 110 million, Manitoba $ 115 million-$50 million this year and $65 million next year-Nova Scotia and New Brunswick will get $20 million each, Newfoundland $15 million, and Prince Edward Island $5 million.
As the formula for computing these amounts has already been explained by the Minister of State (Finance) (Mrs. McDougall), I do not feel necessary to deal again with the matter. I should like to emphasize, however, that as far as Quebec, Manitoba and Nova Scotia are concerned, the supplementary equalization payments are equivalent to the current estimates which these provinces would have received in 198586 and 1986-87, to the minimum of 95 p. 100, the so-called floor, applicable to the weakest provinces from the fiscal point of view. The formula is therefore fair and entirely equitable.
The Quebec government has stated that the amount it will receive is not enough, because that amount does not compensate for the reduction in equalization payments in that province. It should be emphasized, however, that the amounts mentioned in the bill represent the greatest effort which the federal government can make, in view of its current financial situation. Supplementary equalization payments are not provided for in our tax system and will result in an increase of our deficit. Common sense dictates that we could not do more. We are not being as generous as the provinces would like us to be, but we are as generous, and perhaps even more generous than our finances would allow us to be.
Quebec, however, ranks first as far as equalization entitlements are concerned. It will get more than $2.9 billion in 1985-86, that is, almost 56 per cent of the total payments. Never before has that proportion been so high since the coming into force of the current formula. By paying $110 million in supplementary equalization payments, the federal government demonstrates that it is anxious to meet Quebec's needs while respecting its own financial constraints.
Finally, in addition to the $2.9 billion the Quebec government will get in equalization payments during the fiscal year 1985-86, it will get $3.3 billion in cash transfers under various other programs. To this must be added the major federal spendings provided for under the economic development agreement which was signed recently. It calls for the federal government to spend in that province $1 billion over a five year period.
Quebec's reaction to the $110 million offer is understandable in many respects. All governments are subjected to enormous financial pressures, the Quebec government being no exception, and neither is the federal government. We have put forward a solution, which, while not perfect, is just as fair and equitable to Quebec as to the other provinces.
In short, this bill before the House represents a major effort on the part of the federal government to help all provinces
Supplementary Fiscal Equalization Payments qualifying for equalization payments. I, therefore, recommend that the House should adopt it without delay.
Mir. Deputy Speaker: Any questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart).


Mr. Malepart:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for his non partisan comments. He has reminded us that during the benefic years under the Liberal government, Quebec was favoured. I should like to raise one or two points because the Hon. Member stated that from a legal point of view, the Minister of Finances did not have to act. I think that from a moral point of view, it would have been quite bad to do nothing for Quebec. When he says that the Minister of Finance has chosen a fair formula for Quebec compared with other provinces, I entirely disagree.
In order to state my argument clearly, I would like to show him a short table. If it was fair to cover the losses incurred by the provinces, Newfoundland did not have any loss. It received just before the election a gift of $15 million. Prince Edward Island incurred a loss of $5 million and it was granted $5 million more; Nova Scotia had a loss of $58 million and got $20 million; New Brunswick had no loss but was given $20 million.


Claude Lanthier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance on a point of order.


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, I am not very familiar with the Standing Orders, but when a document is shown in this House, is it not the practice to table it?


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: It will not be necessary to hear the Hon. Member on the point of order. You may proceed.


Jean-Claude Malépart: I just wanted to mention, for the benefit of the Hon. Member, that he received the document since it was sent to all Quebec Members.


An Hon. Member:: That is right.


Jean-Claude Malépart: It was a table, a paper prepared by the Government of Quebec that was sent to us by the Minister of Finance. So I hope that you took a careful look-
Now, New Brunswick, which did not suffer any loss at all, is getting a present of $20 million. I do not mind the other provinces getting money. But Quebec, according to the Government of Quebec, has a shortfall of $150 million-in fact, compared to previous years, it was a shortfall of $263 million-and it is receiving only $110 million to compensate.

April 18, 1985
Supplementary Fiscal Equalization Payments
Manitoba, with a shortfall of $72 million for the next two years is getting $115 million.
My question is whether the formula is fair to Quebec if Quebec happens to be the only province that loses out on the deal. Surely the Hon. Member, considering what was said by the Prime Minister during the election campaign, and I think all the Members of this House, and the Hon. Member as well, will agree that Quebec has a special and specific and in fact different status, surely the Hon. Member will agree that Quebec, as far as equalization is concerned, considering the $800 million lost as a result of cutbacks by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and that the so-called billion-dollar agreement was challenged by a number of Members of the Quebec National Assembly, a development agreement spread over five years when you have just lost $800 million, considering the fact that coincidentally, the formula selected at random for reallocating the RRP program also penalizes Quebec compared to its impact on the other provinces, surely it would have been better, as was suggested by my hon. friend from Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau), to extend the original agreement for the next two years, in line with the decision made by the previous Government to the effect that the Province of Quebec would not lose a cent compared with the previous year?
Another point I would like to raise is where the Hon. Member mentions the deficit. I think it is rather amazing that where the multinational oil companies out West are concerned-companies that have made profits-the deficit was not a consideration. When a bank had to be saved, the deficit was not a consideration, but where Quebec is concerned, the deficit is always a consideration and there is always a problem. We have seen this happen with equalization payments, with Domtar it was the same thing again, there was no money, and the money they did get was part of a regional development grant. Since September 4, every time Quebec's interests were concerned, the deficit has been used as an excuse, and nobody is going to convince me that Quebecers are to blame for the deficit. We do not waste money any more than the other provinces do, and the Hon. Member ought to know since he comes from Quebec.
I would like to finish my speech on this note. Does the Hon. Member agree that the formula chosen by the Minister of Finance is unfair to Quebec, because as I showed in the table, provinces that suffered no losses obtained certain sums of money and it is normal that we should be discussing this Bill when the Prime Minister said that the door is open to negotiations?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.


Claude Lanthier: As so many questions are being asked in this House, I should have been taking notes. I have a few here and 1 hope that the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) will forgive me if I do not reply to all his questions for some of them have eluded me. He could repeat them later on.
If I may, I shall begin with the last ones. First of all, it is not because of the people of Quebec that we have a deficit. In this regard, it would be easy to say that a large number of Quebec Members of Parliament were part of the Government which caused this deficit. However, I shall simply say that we now have a deficit and that we have to face up to it, but since I was not here at the time, I unfortunately cannot comment on whatever caused this deficit. However, I believe that the people of Quebec, as all other Canadians and, their Members of Parliament, are partly responsible for the situation.
Secondly, the Member referred to a loss for Quebec. This is a theoretical loss based on an expired, not to say obsolete formula, as was recognized by both the Provincial and the Federal Governments. Let me explain. The obsolescence of the formula was confirmed by the transitional payments, which were added to the basic equalization payments, and secondly, the provincial Government and the Quebec Minister of Finance in their recent request did cut down on their expectations when they said that, theoretically, under the outdated formula, Quebec would be entitled to an increase of some $700 million, but that they would settle for $450 million. I therefore believe that the formula is considered generally as being obsolete. Coming back to the basic issues, I think that this is a theoretical loss based on a formula which everyone has recognized as no longer applicable.
Let us go back to my opening remarks. True enough, I was careful about what I said in my speech earlier, and the Minister of Finance has also said so, that the dice having been cast and the arrangements having been respected, we were no longer under any legal obligation. However, we went beyond that legal obligation. I believe that we also have a moral obligation and that the formula has to be fair to everyone and not be brutally and arbitrarily applied. It was developed in consideration of the needs of the provinces, and I believe that it faithfully reflects the ethics which inspired our decision.
Figures have been quoted and some charts have been shown. Needless to say, even though my remarks might not give a good idea of all the work I did in this field, I am not all that familiar with those charts. But unless I am mistaken about House rules, I do not think this is the proper forum to debate specific provisions and figures, although figures do not bother me. By training and through experience, I have become handy with figures, but I think we ought to be debating the basic principle. In both speeches, mine and that of the Minister a moment ago, the basic principle of equalization was the issue, and it might be a good idea if every Member-Mr. Speaker, do I have the right to read a short quotation from the constitutional statutes to explain the basic principle?
April 18, 1985


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would only urge the Parliamentary Secretary to do so rather briefly, for there is very little time left for questions and comments.


Claude Lanthier: I will read it if I am given time. As to the questions I noted, if I forgot a few which the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) thought were important, I will be pleased to consider them.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I too should like to emphasize the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance has chosen to keep the debate on a nonpartisan level and I intend to do the same. As a matter of fact, that is what I tried to do in the course of my remarks a moment ago.
I should like to thank him for the intellectual honesty he demonstrated when he described the climate which prevailed at the time the equalization payment act was adopted in early April 1982 and when he said that on the basis of the analyses which had been made-I do not know if I am using his exact words-the new formula was not expected to create major difficulties at the end of the transitional period. That is exactly what I tried to establish, namely, that the transitional payments under the guarantee and the rate of growth had affected the provinces diversely. I should like to ask him a two part question. Before suggesting that the House should adopt this Bill, should he not recommend that a more thorough study be made to determine whether the guarantee should not be extended, at least as far as Quebec and Manitoba are concerned, since the other provinces are not penalized? Should not the examination of Bill C-39 be suspended to allow for the consideration of this proposition, the more so in view of the statement made by the Prime Minister that the door was open to negotiations?
On the other hand, I should like to say that I disagree with him on the theoretical issues concerning the basic formula. In my view, the basic formula is very easy to use, and the transitional payments are very easy to compute, since they have been paid out for the past three years without the least difficulties. Why does he claim today that the loss which Quebec is talking about is only a theoretical one? That province is really going to lose $750 million, because the transitional formula will not be extended?


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, the transitional formula ... I said that what we were asked for was to cover the loss, although in theory. I do not know if we are talking about the same figures. Essentially the Quebec Minister of Finance was asking for an extension of either the transition payments base or the orginal formula. However those two formulas have expired. According to what the previous government had provided, there would no longer be any payments. We made the moral judgment that things could not be left that way considering there had been adjustments and drastic reductions
Supplementary Fiscal Equalization Payments in the equalization payments that were due, particularly to Quebec, but to all other provinces as well.
A third point was raised about whether or not a postponement would be appropriate. I do not have a very long experience, but that suggestion did surprise me because ever since I have been here, the government has always been accused of delaying action through consultation. I can assure the House that the decision we are putting before it has gone through all stages of consideration, that is to say that after having gone through the process of consultation and negotiation we arrived at a decision. I think that should reassure opposition members. When the time to negociate comes, we negotiate, when the time to consult comes, we consult, and when the time to decide comes, we decide. And that is the way it happened and this is our proposal. It is therefore not a question of delaying action.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, it will come as no surprise to Members of the House that the debate on this Bill today is of vital importance to the Province of Manitoba and several other provinces. We are faced in very real, human terms with substantial cut-backs by the provincial Government in funds to our universities, our community centres, our hospitals and to the basic structure of our social services. Our educational system is being affected, not to mention the City of Winnipeg, the school boards and other areas of our province because of the problems related to fiscal transfers.
It has been a matter of concern to representatives of all parties. In the provincial legislature, I believe the Conservative Opposition and the NDP endorsed the notion of a full repayment in order to maintain the existing transfer levels. Let me also say that historically, that was a position we endorsed as the previous Government last spring. We clearly indicated at that time to the Government of Manitoba that there would be a review of the transitional payments, that that review and the figures would be made public in the fall and then properly negotiated at a federal-provincial meeting.
That process has not exactly been followed. While there may have been a review, it was an internal review. The figures have not been shared with the provincial Government and there has been no public disclosure to Members of the House or to the public of the recalculation by the Department of Finance. Therefore I believe it somewhat goes against the spirit of the commitment made by the previous Government to recognize that there had to be an adjustment made to the payment and a recalculation of the figures. It was important that that be an open and above board sharing so that there would be an honest and objective judgment of what the real figures were.
This would be in contrast to what the parliamentary secretary objected to, whereby the Quebec Minister of Finance would have a set of figures, the Manitoba Minister of Finance would have a set of figures and the federal Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) would have another set of figures.

April 18, 1985
Supplementary Fiscal Equalization Payments
I suggest that one solution to the dispute in this case would be to follow the advice of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Gameau), who indicated several times that it is not only important to share the information, but to bring the concerned parties together to determine what would be a fair and equitable solution for the major change in the formula that was arrived at in 1982 as a result of changed economic conditions.
This matter is of vital importance and it concerns many human and other sensitive issues in the lives of our respective provinces. Therefore we are asking that it be approached with the same level of sensitivity. We do not suggest that the Government should change its opinion, or that there should not be a new formula, but it should be one that is based upon a more accurate reading of what the actual facts and figures will be and it should particularly try to find a resolution for future reference.
The immediate interim solution is coming very late and, while it may provide some limited comfort to provincial treasuries, it provides little in the way of ability for the major institutions of the respective provinces to know what services will be available in order to make future plans. If there has been any guilt associated with several of the Governments, federal and provincial, over the last several years, it has been this type of obsessive preoccupation with cut-backs and spending reductions. As a result, we have neglected the fact that there are many individuals being affected by these cut-backs.
This raises another important point. This issue is not only of immediate importance to the respective provinces, but it also goes to the very heart of what Confederation is all about. If one looks at the basic agreements that were signed over 100 years ago, one can see that the federal Government was to act as a balancing wheel of Confederation to ensure that there was a sense of regional equity with no imbalance between regions because of economic advantage. Through the tax system, the federal Government would collect from all citizens and transfer funds back to those regions in which there was disparity or disadvantage. That has been a fundamental principle upon which this country is based.
There is a deep sense of anxiety that that principle is not being adhered to by the present Government. We have seen time and again examples of reductions in the economic positions of the various regions of Canada. One does not have to look far, only at the November 8 statement, where there were substantial cut-backs in the industrial and regional development program that provided direct grants particularly to those areas of the country that rely upon some form of public investment in order to develop their economic base.


Pat Carney: Politics of hate.


Lloyd Axworthy: Politics of hate. The problem with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) is that she is so steeped in her own bile that she doesn't understand those who are approaching matters in a positive way. That is her problem. She judges people by her own standards and her own disruptive personality.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, today is Yom Hashoa or, as it is better known, the day of the holocaust. It is an annual day of mourning on which Jews in Canada and around the world remember one of the saddest tragedies of mankind when 6 million Jews, innocent men, women, and children, were sent to their deaths.
The sadness, the suffering, and the outrage linger on, with the knowledge that some of those responsible for these hideous crimes against humanity continue to live without being brought to justice. A number of the perpetrators are amongst us in our country. As a decent nation, a nation that believes in justice, we cannot continue to sit idly by. This Parliament, on behalf of all Canadians, must show its absolute and unequivocal repugnance and bring these people to trial.
The Liberal Party had introduced proposed amendments to the Criminal Code to enable Canadian courts to try and punish convicted war criminals. This is of the essence, Mr. Speaker, if war criminals living in Canada are to face human justice. Ultimately, they will have their day of reckoning, of that we can be sure. In the meantime I call on the Government to support the Liberal initiatives so that we no longer have those amongst us in our free and democratic society who have caused millions of deaths, billions of tears, and shame to humanity.



TERRORISM


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, on April 2 I received a letter. The following was the content, and I think it deserves the attention of the House of Commons:
Terrorist developments over the last week in southern Ontario have disturbed us tremendously. It is with utmost sadness that we had to face this situation.
April 18, 1985

As you know, Mr. Deans, ihe media has handled this situation poorly, failing to distinguish peace loving Armenian majority from the few extremists, if any. The Armenian community in Ontario has been accused and sentenced without trial by the media. Our image as peaceful citizens has been severely damaged.
As a community, we have always condemned violence as a means to achieve our goal. Under no circumstances the Armenian community would be associated with such a cowardly act.
We have worked very hard to gain some public support for our cause through peaceful means, to some of which you might have attended. It will now take us many years to redress what has happened to the Armenian image in general.
1 think it is fair to say, Mr. Speaker, that the Members of the House of Commons would want to recognize that the Armenian community in Canada has made a valuable contribution to the growth of the country, and that the extremists to which the letter refers are the people the majority of us are dealing with when we make comments about the need to tighten security.
1 think that with the support of the House of Commons we would want to commend the Armenian community in general for the good work it has done in Canada.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to refer to a most important agreement that has just been reached by the President of the Treasury Board with the Public Service unions of Canada.
The Government agreed with the unions to introduce in the Public Service a system of master agreement bargaining, a dental plan, a revised pension plan and improved workforce adjustment procedures. To improve government operations, the Public Service should be more responsive to the needs expressed and more efficient.
These new guidelines for cooperation, for consultation prior to decision-making and for setting common goals to settle important matters have been established to develop a sense of responsibility in all parties concerned and will be available as models for future labour-management agreements.
PIPS president thus termed the agreement "the most significant development in the public sector since 1967". The agreement will no doubt promote our economic recovery and improve the standard of living of all Canadians. The understanding will provide the terms of reference required to negotiate master agreements covering approximately 80 per cent of the working conditions now covered in individual collective agreements.
Mr. Speaker, after all those years of arrogance and autocratic rule under the previous Government, the Progressive Conservative Government has opened the way to a new era of understanding and faith in the years to come.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, during the life of the Thirty-third Parliament we will be called upon to review all aspects of Canada's foreign policy. Part of that review should focus on the recent trip of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to the Soviet Union. That trip, I believe, has accomplished several things for Canada. To begin with, it has raised Canada's profile with our fourth largest trading partner. The agreement of the Soviets to renew the grain agreement between our respective countries is a positive step forward. Increased co-operation in such areas as acid rain, and economic and cultural areas, will enhance our relationship for years to come.
The trip establishes a stable, business-like relationship with the Soviet Union in spite of our differences. As was pointed out by my colleague, the Member for Parkdale-Hyde Park (Mr. Witer) we did not hesitate to raise the existing areas of differences between our two countries. As a member of that delegation I can say to this House that the Minister and my other colleagues used every opportunity to raise the issue of human rights. We made it very clear that family reunification, Jewish emigration, and related subjects, are and will continue to be of great importance to the people of Canada.
I was very pleased, Mr. Speaker, to see the extent and the type of coverage this trip generated in the media. However, I am not surprised by the attitude taken by the members of the Liberal and New Democratic Parties. Sometimes silence speaks louder than words. It is significant, and a measure of the success of the Minister's trip, that four days since the reconvening of Parliament not one question has been asked of the Minister concerning his visit.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative government is lost in admiration for the American administration. The Progressive conservatives not only draw their inspiration from it, but they have also yielded to the Americans on all points, under the pretext that harmonious relations would result in jobs for Canadians.
I have yet to find one industry to which such ridiculous grovelling and shameful submission have been or will be beneficial.
Quite to the contrary, the consequences have been disastrous, particularly for agriculture. In fact, as a result of the
3856

April 18, 1985
savage and unilateral decision of the U.S. to impose a special tax on hogs imported from Canada, Quebec producers now have no alternative but to sell their product at a price substantially lower than the production cost. Several producers face bankruptcy and if this situation keeps up, it will surely end in tragedy. What does the future hold for dairy producers? If one looks at the situation in the United States, which will probably be duplicated in Canada, there is also reason for serious concern, all the more so because there is serious talk of abolishing the Canadian Dairy Commission. Besides, dairy producers are still awaiting since April 1st the $1.40 per hectolitre promised to them.
The only happy people in the Quebec agricultural sector are the 129 notaries, friends of the Progressive Conservative Party, who will probably become members of the select "Mulroney Club".
Farmers refuse to fatten 129 notaries when they also need money to pay for seed grains at this time of year.



AIR CANADA


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure most Members of the House are aware, Canada faces an impending strike at Air Canada. Air Canada claims to believe in equality for women, yet here is a workplace where 76 per cent of its clerical workers and 71 per cent of its service workers are women, while only 3 per cent of upper level managers and 7 per cent of middle management people are women.
Yesterday Air Canada proposed to decrease drastically the starting pay for CALEA workers, most of whom are women. Air Canada also wants to eliminate many full-time jobs which have a decent wage and benefit package, and replace them with lower paying part-time jobs. Air Canada claims that it needs over 30 per cent of its work force to be part-time only. Today when we are concerned about the rights of equality in the Constitution, we cannot allow de facto inequality not only to exist but to increase within one of our Crown corporations.
The Government has recently demonstrated its willingness to use its jurisdiction over one Crown corporation, the Post Office. The Government must also intervene in the case of Air Canada before strike action commences.



EXPO '86 CANADA PLACE-INVITATION TO VISIT

Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, visitors to Expo '86 in Vancouver next year will be able to
stand on the shores of tomorrow as they meet at Canada Place, the spectacular national pavilion gracing the shores of Vancouver's harbour.
Canada's world exposition in 1986 will showcase the transportation and communications advances of tomorrow. Beneath the lofty sail-like roof of the host Canadian pavilion, visitors will marvel at an astonishing Canada, presented in a dimension that no one has ever conceived before, Canada, a nation that is wielding its high technology to explore new frontiers in the skies above and the oceans below.
Canada Place is more than just the most exciting pavilion at Expo '86. It is an architectural marvel, rising atop a massive pier on the waterfront of the world's most beautiful city. It is a world class trade and convention centre, and a major cruise ship terminal set against the backdrop of elegant Stanley Park, vibrant Burrard Inlet, and the splendid coastal mountains. Canada Place is a cosmopolitan hotel, a world trade centre, and pier side public plaza.
I invite all Canadians to come to Vancouver next year and meet the world at Canada Place.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, following some recent statements by a few carriers who request the elimination of Mirabel Airport, I want to inform the House of the role played by Nationair.
Since its first flight, on December 19 of last year, this company has carried almost 50,000 passengers and has become, starting from scratch, one of the main users of Mirabel Airport. Nationair considers Mirabel as an exceptional airport and intends to use it as a base for its future growth.
It is obvious that established carriers ultimately aim at the closing-down of Mirabel. Therefore, how could they be committed to the cause of this airport?
According to Nationair, the attitude of established carriers clearly demonstrates that we cannot expect any cooperation from them for the development of the airport. Therefore, if Mirabel is to survive, we must encourage new carriers like Nationair to provide new services.
Nationair believes in Mirabel and suggests that if the Government shares its belief, then we can rely on the airline to commit all its energy and as Nationair is already doing, to increase traffic and give a dynamic image to this magnificient airport.
April 18, 1985



SOCIAL SECURITY


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, yesterday was an historical day while some people drank champagne to mark the end of discrimination across Canada. But unfortunately, 80,000 needy senior citizens could not celebrate that day because of discriminatory provisions in Bill C-26. Moreover, the answer of the Minister of social injustice in Canada, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), proved clearly that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) was only bluffing in her statement on behalf of the Government.
The Minister would not tell us why he will not amend his Bill which would create discrimination against 80,000 needy senior citizens, most of whom are women, simply because they are single, separated or divorced. He would not tell them why he denies the spouse's allowance to them. On top of that these elderly citizens will not be able to join for a membership fee of $100 the Quebec club of "smiley brilliant Brian" because they do not have the money to have their views represented in this House.



PARLIAMENTARY RESTAURANT


Mr. Allan Pietz (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign last summer the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney), while campaigning in the Niagara Pensinsula, promised assistance to grape growers who were experiencing problems due to a surplus of grapes. In November, 1984, this promise was kept and 30,000 tonnes of surplus grapes were purchased for processing into various beverages.
However, on January 31, 1985, a delegation of farmers from Welland and the Niagara area came to Ottawa to meet with myself and other Members of Parliament. Upon visiting the Parliamentary Restaurant we were served the house wine, and were told that it was an imported foreign wine. This naturally raised concern among both farmers and Members.
Shortly thereafter I contacted the purchaser for the Parliamentary Restaurant to question why foreign wines were being served as the house wine in this most Canadian institution. Yesterday I was informed that, in response to my questions and other Members' questions, Canadian wines are now being featured as house wines in the parliamentary dining room. I was also informed that the rotation of the restaurant wine list will be arranged to represent every wine growing district in Canada on a monthly basis.
I would like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, and your administration, for these recent changes in policy. On behalf of all Canadian grape growers, particularly those in the Niagara
Oral Questions
area, I urge all Members of Parliament to do their part in support of our wine industry by ordering Canadian wines.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



FORESTRY


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, knowledgeable foresters in British Columbia and across Canada recognize that there is a need to spend $300 million a year to bring the good and medium Not Satisfactorily Restocked forest lands back into production for future generations in British Columbia. An area larger than Prince Edward Island now lies idle in British Columbia due to the continued negligence of the Social Credit Government's policies on reforestation.
The Socreds, along with the 19 B.C. Tory Members, are playing a game of smoke and mirrors over this issue with the B.C. public. Let us keep in mind that both are in power. Last year the Canadian Forest Service offered $50 million per year as a contribution to help reforest British Columbia. Now the Minister responsible for industrial expansion east of the Rockies is offering $150 million over Five years, for a joint agreement of $300 million for British Columbia over five years.
This agreement should be split off immediately from the over-all ERDA package so that those involved in planting the seedlings this year can get on with the job. Each day that goes by limits the potential success of these needed silvacultural projects. The game of smoke and mirrors over whether the total Canada/B.C. agreement should be $650 million or not should be concluded at the earliest possible date between the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Premier.
The fact that the agreement on reforestation is only one-fifth of what has been identified as needed is what the media in British Columbia should be reminding the public about.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. For the second time in a month he has seriously embarrassed a Cabinet colleague. I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister why he has undermined the credibility of his colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, by failing to advise that Minister of the preparation of a report calling for the destruction of his colleague's Department, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

April 18, 1985
Oral Questions


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the fairytale preamble of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is entirely inaccurate. The very competent Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and I have had ongoing discussions ever since the work of the task force on the program review commenced. What has resulted today is the disclosure of some of the suggestions that are flowing from our work on the task force, suggestions that the Minister will be considering pursuant to a mandate which has been given to him by the Prime Minister to chair a committee of Cabinet to look into the whole wide range of aboriginal policies in order to take into account some of these and, I am sure, other very broad dimensional problems that he will add to the task as he pursues his work with his usual competence and diligence.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MINISTER'S POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is smiling as widely as I am after that elegy-I was going to say elegos remarks-by his colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister.
I direct this question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Nothern Development. The report calls for the mutilation of his Department. It calls for the mutilation of programs which assist our native and aboriginal people. It demonstrates, I believe, the hidden agenda of the Government. It illustrates once again that the Government really does not know through one Minister what another Minister is doing, or vice versa. The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. If what the Deputy Prime Minister says is so, and of course in Parliament I cannot doubt that, will the Minister say to our native and aboriginal people that the report is without foundation and that he continues his commitment toward the continuation of his own Department and toward governmental policies in which he believes?


Hon. David Crombie (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I think I can do better than that for the Leader of the Opposition. He may know that prior to the House meeting, at about 1.30, the Prime Minister made a statement which is now public.


John Napier Turner: He just made it.


David Edward Crombie: I think he did a masterful job in re-enunciating and reaffirming all those principles which he stated so well at the FMC two weeks ago.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: Those principles, of course, are consistent with the Government's desire to make sure that native people do much better than they did under 15 years of Liberal rule.


PROCEEDINGS AT FIRST MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that answer is not really in the style of a Minister I have known since he was a very good mayor of Toronto. The Minister has referred to the last-minute bailout which was just issued at 1.30 by the Prime Minister. I am obviously invited by the Minister to address a question to the Prime Minister. He refers to that report as having been written by bureaucrats. Of course it was not written by bureaucrats.
The Deputy Prime Minister had a committee composed of outside business colleagues, most of whom were ideological friends of the Prime Minister. It was not a committee composed of bureaucrats at all.
In a salvage operation, the Prime Minister has appointed the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to supervise a committee to direct the future of the aboriginal peoples, something which is already the responsibility of the Minister. In other words, he is being asked to head a committee which is supervising the matter overseen by his own Department. Would the Prime Minister give the commitment that the recent Federal-Provincial Conference was not a sham in light of what has been happening in a clandestine fashion under the aegis of his colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should say that that question is not in keeping with the style that the Right Hon. Member once exhibited as Minister of Finance some years ago. In point of fact we did not say that bureaucrats will do anything other than advise. The Government itself will make policy. There is nothing in here that said that the report-


John Napier Turner: They weren't bureaucrats.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I get the indulgence of my right hon. friend. It does not say that the report in question was prepared by bureaucrats. It was prepared by an outside advisory group. What I heard at the First Ministers' Conference on Aboriginal Peoples from the aboriginal peoples was this: "We have had it up to the teeth with the manner in which the federal Government has administered our lives over the last number of years and we want to listen to new ideas and new approaches that will benefit us and bring equality and justice to aboriginals across the country." We are simply saying that there may be some good ideas and, if they will benefit aboriginal peoples, we will listen to them and implement them in a spirit of fairness and decency.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Liberal Members should not be heckling the aboriginal peoples. They should be listening, because this is a vitally important question that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development addresses with great leadership and sensitivity at all times.
April 18, 1985


SPACE WEAPONRY
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, while we are on the subject of new ideas and fresh approaches, I would like to put a question to the Prime Minister. As he probably knows, yesterday Norway very wisely and with some courage made a statement indicating that it would not become involved in star wars research. It has turned down the American invitation to do so.
It is clear that this Government's own sense of uncertainty is only causing dissension in the government caucus, and deep anxiety in the country. It is also losing a chance for Canada to make a very important and effective statement on the whole question of arms control and disarmament. Taking into account the stand Norway has taken, and the fact that the West Germans and the French are also developing a joint position, I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he would now join our NATO ally, Norway, and clearly indicate, in a very polite and direct way, that we, as a country, also do not intend to become involved in the research and development program that would lead to that very highly dangerous and destabilizing initiative of President Reagan.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, what we will do is what the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs set out with great clarity and dignity on January 21. We will support our friends and allies in regard to the research component of the concept inasmuch as the Geneva negotiations were weeks away from beginning. We will examine any other possibilities pursuant to the national interest of Canada.
We have received what has been referred to as an invitiation. We will make the necessary inquiries. We will take a look at it in Cabinet, and we will be guided by what we have done at the insistence of the Minister of National Defence, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and myself, when we included, for the first time, a sovereignty clause in our defence agreements. We will protect the sovereignty, independence, and integrity of Canada, and we shall always act in the national interest of this country, as a friend and loyal supporter of NATO, and as a believer in freedom, justice, and democracy.


UNITED STATES INVITATION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, those are all values and purposes to which we can adhere. They key question is when will the Government make a decision in order to show us how it intends to keep those values.
I would ask the Prime Minister to confirm whether or not the country has now received an extension on that invitation from the United States, and whether or not there is some intention to send a task force composed only of Conservative Members of Parliament to Washington to discuss this matter with the Americans. I would like to get some kind of guarantee
Oral Questions
from the Prime Minister that, if there is to be such a task force, it would be a task force involving all Members of the House because we represent all Canadians, and that any extension would not result in the Government making a decision after Parliament has closed, at which time it would not have to face Parliament with what is a very critical decision in the history of our country.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, this is coming from a Cabinet Minister who was a member of a Government that never once in its life ever brought a treaty to Parliament prior to signing it. It always signed them behind the backs of the Canadian people. He now has the temerity to rise and say what he has said.
What we are going to do is very simple and straightforward.


John Napier Turner: Not true.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I beg the right hon. gentleman's pardon. It is quite true. What we are going to do is ask a very distinguished, principled, and impartial public servant to make necessary inquiries on our behalf, and to report to Cabinet. We will consider these matters within our own time frame and not with regard to any limitations of time imposed by anyone else. We will consider them and, pursuant to that, we will report to the House. I know the Secretary of State for External Affairs is deeply committed to consulting with opposition Parties and to keeping the House and the Canadian people fully involved in and informed of our intentions and actions in this regard.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I am pleased to see that, when there is a crisis in his Department, this Minister at least has the courage to recognize his duty to be in the House.
The Minister has said that there will be no cut-backs in programs that count. Now we have a task force report calling for SI69 million in cuts, for housing to be built to minimal standards, and for a means test for medical services. When did the Minister first become aware of the report and its contents? Does he endorse those contents?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, the report of the study team contains a number of recommendations, some of which are good, some of which are bad; some of which are wise, some of which are unwise. I can assure the Hon. Member that all of those recommendations, and recommendations from other sources, will be dealt with by the committee over time, and its recommendations will be consistent with the principles that were established at the First Ministers' Conference held two weeks ago.

April 18, 1985
Oral Questions POSITION OF INDIAN GROUPS


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the Minister's conclusion consultation with Indian people across the country, does he know of one single Indian group or nation that is in favour of having responsibity for medicare or education turned over to the provinces? Is there one single Indian group that wants that?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, there may be, but the Hon. Member is absolutely correct, there is a strong feeling in all Indian communities with which I have dealt that they have a special relationship was emphasized and acted upon at the First Ministers' Conference, and that continues to be the policy of the Government.


MINISTER'S POSITION
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister assure the House that he will oppose any transfer of powers over Indian people to the provinces, as long as Indian people oppose that, when we consider the record of the provinces, many of which oppose the whole concept of Indian self-government? Will he fight for the Indian people in that particular battle?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, at all times any policy initiative I have undertaken on behalf of the Government treaty renovation, block funding or community-based self-government-any of those-has always dealt with one principel, that is, grass roots community level consultation. That will continue, I can assure the Hon. Member.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It flows from the negligence of the Ontario Government in failing to close the road immediately after the PCB spill was detected in Kenora, and failing to verify that the transformers were empty upon entering Ontario, and from the negligence of the Ontario Ministry of Environment in allowing unmarked boxes containing contamined PCB samples to be shipped via a passenger air line without its consent. What power does he have as Minister of Transport to stop Ontario Government mismanagement in handling the PCB question?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious the Hon. Member wants to fight the Ontario provincial election on the floor of the House of Commons. Perhaps he is more interested in that than in the real issue, which is very serious, I might add. As I said earlier in the House, the federal Department of Transport and the
Department of the Environment are collaborating very closely with the Government of Ontario.


John Napier Turner: Finally.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: No, not finally. It was within hours.


John Napier Turner: Within the last few hours.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Within hours of the accident occurring, I might say to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. As I indicated yesterday to other Hon. Members in the House, departmental officials and myself are exploring ways and means of implementing Section 28 of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act that would provide for a protection directive which would have the effect of applying regulations with respect to the movement of PCBs or other substances of a similar nature.


CARRIAGE OF PCB CONTAMINATED MATERIAL BY PASSENGER AIRLINE
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House have the protection and the safety of the people of Ontario at heart, contrary to what the Minister of Transport may think.
What action does the Minister intend to take with respect to the practice of Ontario environment officials allowing contaminated PCB samples to be shipped via passenger air line, as declared by David Edwards, who is quoted as saying: "We didn't ship these samples any differently than we usually do"? What action does he intend to take? That is his responsibility, isn't it?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we all know that no one in the House has a monopoly on the protection and security of the citizens of Ontario. Certainly that commitment is shared by Hon. Members on this side of the House, as well as Hon. Members on the other side of the House. I hope that is very clear. With respect to the incident to which the Hon. Member referred, there have been discussions between transport officials and Department of Environment officials of the province of Ontario. I think the particular issue to which he referred has been cleared up.


GOVERNMENT'S KNOWLEDGE OF INCIDENTS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to either the Minister of the Environment or the Minister of Transport, depending upon who is really responsible for federal action in the area of this PCB spill. Is the Government aware that a Red Lake family, a husband, a pregnant wife, and two children, followed the truck for 25 kilometres, pulled it over, and were told that it was only mineral oil, to be cleaned with rags and gas? Is the Government aware that the provincial hot line in Kenora advises that car bodies be washed with paper towels and that they be placed in plastic bags and taken to the dump? Is it aware that the Quebec Government was lied to by the company with
April 18, 1985

respect to whether or not the transformer was full? Is the Government aware of all these things and, if it is, what will it do about provincial and industry incompetence in this area, and when will it take some responsibility for what has been going on around here?


Hon. Suzanne Blais-Grenier (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the New Democratic Party is actually asking three questions. I am going to answer one of them.
Not only are we perfectly aware of what happened to that family, but we are in contact with the chief medical officer in Ontario. We offered him means of transportation, medical equipment and our laboratories in case he feels they should be used for this particular family.


REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has not told the House or the Canadian people what the Government intends to do about the rank incompetence and negligence we see rippling out from this one event, both on the part of the provincial Government of Ontario and now on the part of the fedral Government itself. Is it going to investigate this incident? Is it going to find out who was lying to whom? Were the drivers lying to the people? Was the company lying to the drivers? Was the company lying to the province? What is going on? Don't you even care about this any more?


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, I wonder where my NDP colleague was in 1978 when PCB was banned, since he never once spoke up to ask for disposal sites to be planned according to the criteria he is talking about today.


INDUSTRY
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and it concerns the White Farm situation. I understand that in the last 18 months this company captured some 22 per cent of the market as compared with 7 per cent in 1983, employs 700 people, and provides some 400 to 500 jobs in parts supplies. Why is the Government refusing to assist White Farm, after it belatedly provided aid to Domtar and Petromont, and in view of the fact that Borg-Warner is willing to assume all the debt of that company? Will the Minister explain why he is putting these jobs in peril and is not willing to provide assistance to this company?
Oral Questions


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Hon. Member gets a better researcher. At no time has the Government indicated an unwillingness to help in the plight of White Farm Equipment. We met yesterday with Mr. Sinclair. We have met with and talked with representatives of Borg-Warner. We have indicated that if they feel we can help, if there is some way we can facilitate the company being re-established, we will do that. However, no firm proposal has been put to us at the present time.
We are very pleased to tell the Hon. Member that the deadline of Friday which was thought to exist is a much easier deadline than was originally indicated. If there is time to work, hopefully that plant can be saved.


PROTECTION OF TECHNOLOGY
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Minister really intends to be so helpful, will he and his officials come up with a proposal which will achieve results with respect to saving jobs and the technology? In any event, if no proposal can be worked out, will the Government ensure that the technology developed by White will remain in Canada and that the workers trained in that technology will be able to keep working in that field right in this country?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, there is no problem in what the Hon. Member is indicating. Of course we will work toward saving the plant and the jobs concerned, and we will do our best to see that the technology remains in Canada.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I think it is sad and strange that in a week when Parliament and the people of Canada are talking about equality, a committee appointed by the Government should be recommending reductions in expenditures for the most disadvantaged group in the country, native people. I am sure the Minister knows that in cities such as Winnipeg, Calgary and Vancouver, to mention just a few, there is an ever increasing number of native people, both status and non-status, who are having great difficulty integrating into the life of those cities. Will the Minister give the House assurances that, in any discussions or proposals to reduce expenditures for native people, the programs now in place to help the native people who are living in our cities will not be reduced?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I can give the Hon. Member that assurance. Indeed, in the statement to which I

April 18, 1985
Oral Questions
referred earlier, the Prime Minister makes it clear that levels of funding for the programs just described by the Hon. Member will be maintained. So the assurance is unequivocally given.


ADVISORY COMMITTEE
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the Minister will know that virtually all of the discussions we have had with regard to native problems have focused on the problems of native people living on the reserves. Will the Minister look to the possibility of appointing an advisory committee of people who know something about the problems of native people living in the cities so that he can be briefed on those problems and we can begin to address and solve some of the major problems these native people have?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I might say that there is already an advisory committee dealing with Indian people living off-reserve. As the Hon. Member may know, that is a responsibility I share with the Secretary of State. Toward that end, I have met with mayors of major municipalities, including Winnipeg, Vancouver, and Toronto, and have indicated to them that it is time to turn the page and deal more appropriately with the plight of those people who live in those cities and who have not been dealt with in any significant or fair way over the past 20 years.


NORTH AMERICAN AIR DEFENCE
Mr. Moe Mantha (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Privy Council. I am sure he can appreciate my interest, and that of my North Bay constituents, in a matter relating to Canadian-American co-operation in the air defence of the North American continent. On several occasions in the House, Hon. Members in both opposition Parties have asked the Government, in accordance with the 1980 Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence report, that this subject matter be referred to the committee at least a year prior to the renewal of the NORAD agreement. My question, Mr. Speaker, is-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Moe Mantha: Since the agreement was last renewed on May 12, 1981, can the Minister assure this House that a reference will be made at the earliest possible moment?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the last questioner is as good a questioner in the House of Commons as he was a hockey player in his former incarnation.
The Hon. Member does raise a very serious question. As you will know, Mr. Speaker, we have been attempting to bring forward a reference to the committee of the renewal of the NORAD agreement. As a matter of fact, before Easter I communicated with the opposition Parties about this matter and asked for an immediate reference. I have to say that the New Democratic Party in fact agreed to have the matter go directly to committee so that the work could commence. We would be on with the job right now, but unfortunately the Liberals want to have a protracted debate on the floor of the House of Commons. If the Leader of the Official Opposition could get his Party together, we could get this matter to committee right away, today, and we would be pleased to proceed with this important issue.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It relates to the hiring practices of Pratt & Whitney. Mr. Speaker, at a time when thousands of engineers are unemployed in Canada, we are talking about 7,000 or so, Pratt & Whitney is advertising in the British media to recruit personnel from that country. In the meantime, an official of her department says he is prepared to approve automatically the applications of those British nationals. In fact, in English the words are: We will rubber-stamp them.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Jacques Guilbault: I am getting there.

I want to ask the Hon. Minister whether she is prepared today to make the commitment to curtail that policy of automatic approval, of rubber-stamping of those applications for residence, and to assure us that the existing rules will be applied, namely that no foreigners will be allowed into Canada to fill those positions as long as Canadian engineers are available.


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, there is no question but that is the policy of the Government. There is no question but that while there are people in Canada who are unemployed, Canadian people who are without jobs in this country, the applications for jobs, whether it be engineers, the medical profession, or in any other level of work, will go to Canadians first.
April 18, 1985


AGREEMENT WITH AEROSPACE INDUSTRY
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote for the Minister the words of Wendy Cuthbertson of the United Auto Workers, who was reported as saying: "Not enough attention is paid to skills training of Canadian workers". She also claims that companies find it easier to import workers from places like Britain. Is the Minister ready to pursue the agreement which was reached some three years ago with the aerospace industry, and which called for joint planning of skills development, or has she dropped that program like she has dropped other worth-while plans?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I realize that the Hon. Member has not been in the House very much these past number of weeks.


John Napier Turner: Oh, come on!


Mr. Gauthier:: That's a lie, and you know it.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Nevertheless, I would have expected him to have been aware of the whole new labour market strategy which the Government has announced. In those fields there are areas to which funding has been committed on a multi-year basis for skills development, for job development, for skills shortages. If the Hon. Member has not read the labour market strategy, I will be very happy to send him a copy.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the health and welfare of Canadians. It is reported that representatives of Kinetic Ecological Resource Group Ltd. advised an Ontario family affected by the recent PCB spill that they are more likely to be affected negatively by aspirin than by PCB contact. As the Minister knows, that statement is grossly irresponsible. I wonder if the Minister would not agree that since this is the largest, most publicly pervasive PCB spill in Canadian history, it would be appropriate for him to set up a medical registry immediately which would allow those people who came in contact with the spill to have a long-term medical evaluation done of any impact it would have on them?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, that is a serious question and one, in light of what has happened, which has to be taken seriously. I would like to tell the Hon. Member that our Department has been in touch with Ontario health officials on site, especially Dr. Peter Friesen. We have been in contact with him pretty well on a daily basis.
Oral Questions
There was a family vehicle following the truck which carried the transformers. That family had their vehicle sprayed with PCB and the carrier solution. Unfortunately, the gentleman who was driving the vehicle which was sprayed came into contact with the contaminants themselves, or the toxic substance, as well as his family. We are looking at certain conditions there. I do not want to frighten anyone. I want to say that it is being examined very closely and, as 1 said the other day in the House, any help we can give, obviously, we are ready to offer immediately, and have done so.
With respect to the question of a registry, I do not want in any way to reject it out of hand or say it is not a valuable suggestion. I will look at that suggestion in light of the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Minister may want to make a statement on motions.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the medical registry would be set up. It would not cost anything.


INFORMATION GIVEN BY TRUCKING COMPANY TO QUEBEC AUTHORITIES
James Ross Fulton: My supplementary question is directed to the Solicitor General. It is also reported that Kinetic Ecological Resource Group Ltd. falsely advised Environment Quebec that the transformers were empty prior to this week's disastrous spill. Since the people of Canada have been criminally victimized by the negligence of this corporation, I wonder if the Minister would assure this House that those responsible will be immediately arrested, as they should be, and prosecuted under every possible statute, including the Criminal Code, because it is about time some of these environmental polluters, the bunch of bastards that they are, were put behind bars.


An Hon. Member:: Right on.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appreciate the gravity of the question but I must ask the Hon. Member to withdraw the offending word. The use of the language is unparliamentary. I am sure the Hon. Member can find a way to rephrase the question.


James Ross Fulton: I would be pleased to withdraw it, Mr. Speaker, but I trust they will be arrested.


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I can readily appreciate the indignation expressed by my colleague opposite, intemperate though it may be. I will take his question as a representation and look into it seriously.

April 18, 1985
Oral Questions PETRO-CANADA


SALE OF COME-BY-CHANCE REFINERY-ASSESSMENT OF BIDS
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It concerns the Petro-Canada sale of the Come-by-Chance oil refinery. On May 1, Petro-Canada will open and begin to assess the bids which have been received for the purchase of the refinery. Will the Minister please tell the House and the people of Newfoundland what criteria will be used by Petro-Canada to assess those bids?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, that is a matter for Petro-Canada to decide in an open bidding process. I do not think it would be useful to discuss the question of criteria when it is still open for tenders.


ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that a bid which has as its objective the reactivation of that refinery is infinitely preferable to the people of Newfoundland, indeed I am sure to the people of Canada, then one which would simply see the refinery scrapped, so the question of criteria in assessing the bids is fantastically important. It may be the difference between long-term economic benefits and jobs in Newfoundland, and someone who simply comes in and scraps the refinery.
If the Minister will not discuss criteria in this House, will she at least assure us that she will instruct Petro-Canada to look at long-term economic benefits to the people of Newfoundland and long-term jobs in reactivating that refinery, rather than Petro-Canada's cash balance sheet?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Hon. Member that we have done more for jobs to the benefit of Newfoundland in six months than his Party did in 16 years. I would further remind him that the Newfoundland election is over, and I have told him that all options for the future of the refinery are open.


AIRPORTS
Jean-Guy Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Transport). Recently, some carriers spread uncertainty and confusion about the future of Mirabel. Some very dynamic carriers like Nationair consider Mirabel a remarkable airport, and they intend to develop new services there. Does the Minister intend
to establish a development plan of the said airport to make the investments of Canadian taxpayers profitable?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure the Hon. Member. The Department of Transport cannot afford the cost of closing any airport be it Mirabel or even Dorval. It is obvious however that we are trying, mainly with groups from the Montreal area, to find solutions which would make it possible, on the one hand, to cover all the operating costs without incurring huge deficits and, on the other hand, to recognize the transportation needs in the Montreal area in relation to the needs of the country as a whole.


MINES AND MINING
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Mines. On April 3 I asked the Minister in this House if he was aware of the fact that Falconbridge Mines Limited was preparing to spend $41.5 million in expanding a refinery in Norway to refine Botswana nickel while never providing a refinery in the Sudbury basin where Falconbridge is located. I asked him if he was prepared to approach Falconbridge to get the refinery built in the Sudbury basin. He said he was not aware of what was happening. Did the Minister contact Falconbridge and make representations to make sure that it put the $41.5 million as a down payment against a refinery and do something it has never done since it has been in Canada?


Hon. Bob Layton (Minister of State (Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, I have already provided the Hon. Member with the written response which I assured him he would get after his original question. I have since learned, and I think the public announcement in the press today confirms that this particular corporation plans to spend five times as much money in the Sudbury basin as is proposed for its investment in Norway.


DEFERMENT OF TAXES
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. I ask him the question not to put him on the spot but because I know he is knowledgeable in the mining field.
Over the last two years Falconbridge was allowed to defer $150 million in federal taxes. Yesterday Mr. Bill James said at the annual shareholders' meeting that they have found a new technique for not paying taxes in Canada. In view of that, will the Prime Minister use his influence, and the contacts 1 know he has with the management and executive officers of Falconbridge, and try to persuade them that this is the time, when the company is turning around, to make that big investment in Sudbury which can get us out of forever shipping our resources
April 18, 1985

to be refined overseas, and give us a chance to recoup the 800 jobs we have lost at the Falconbridge nickel mine in the Sudbury basin?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I can only say, Mr. Speaker, what I think is widely known, and my colleague knows it at least as well as I do, that Falconbridge went through some extremely difficult times. There were many years of substantial, overwhelming losses, and a badly damaged balance sheet. It was the intervention, I think, of Bill James, a skilled management team, and excellent labour relations, which turned it around. I think all Members of the House should be saluting the management for what they did to save jobs in the basin.
With regard to any technique which may have been developed not to pay taxes, I assume that he was referring to loss carry forwards and things which are provided for under the Income Tax Act, because I can assure my hon. friend, knowing Mr. James and the leadership of that company, who are most honourable people, that this Government in any event will make sure that the doctrine of fairness applies and that everyone, including all corporations, pay a fair amount of tax.


John R. Rodriguez: What about the refinery?


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue with respect to the Post Office. Bearing in mind that urban people can approach their post office box in any state of attire, reach around the corner of the door and get their mail absolutely free, does the Postmaster General consider it fair that in some rural areas people have to pay for their post office boxes and that there is an intention to have the room those boxes are located in closed at 3.30 in the afternoon?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I always look forward to getting these questions from my hon. friend. Let me start by saying that I am not the Postmaster General; I am the Minister responsible for Canada Post Corporation. As the Hon. Member knows, the Corporation has a rate increase application before Cabinet. Cabinet's role at the present time is to act as a regulator, and for the next 60 days we will be receiving representations from Canadians. I will certainly accept the representation made by the hon. gentleman and ensure that it is drawn to the attention of Canada Post Corporation.
Oral Questions


AGRICULTURE
Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture and deals with dairy policy.
Yesterday at the convention of the Quebec Federation of Milk Producers, all delegates were anticipating an announcement about the partial payment of $1.40 per hectolitre which was expected since the very beginning of April. Can the Minister tell the House when the payment will be made and what the amount will be?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question and the concern expressed on behalf of the dairy farmers of Canada. I can only respond by saying that the matter is under very serious consideration at the moment.


REQUEST FOR DETAILS CONCERN ING CANADIAN DAIRY COMMISSION
Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, why is the Minister of Agriculture now considering the abolishment of the Canadian Dairy Commission which has been so useful to farmers during the past ten years, providing some stability and security in that important production?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I think if the Hon. Member knew a little more about the dairy industry in Canada he would realize that indeed the request put forward by the dairy farmers of Canada is not shared equally or totally or to the same degree by producers in all provinces of Canada at this moment.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday we marked "equality day". At the same time as we were talking rhetorically about "equality day", the Conservatives on the Standing Committee on Regional Development voted down an amendment to take into account employment equity.
.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member may not know that matters that are before a committee may not be raised in the House.


Steven W. Langdon: I am not raising that question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: What is the Member's question?

April 18, 1985
Point of Order-Mr. Gauthier


Steven W. Langdon: The question, Mr. Speaker, is whether the Government believes, despite that vote, that it should exercise its influence-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I just indicated to the Member that he could not mention the vote of the committee. Does the Member have a question? I realize he is new.


Steven W. Langdon: Does the Government believe that it should exercise its influence wherever possible to encourage employment equity for those so long disadvantaged in our society, such as women, native people, visible minorities, and the disabled?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yes.


POINT OF ORDER
[Stage Direction]
COMMENT OF MISS MacDONALD ON ABSENCE OF MEMBER
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to something that happened during Question Period. A comment was made by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald). It is well known that in the House we do not refer to the presence or absence of Members-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
[ Translation]


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Such are the Standing Orders of the House, whether we like it or not.
As far as attendance is concerned, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) has one of the best records in this House and the Minister could follow his example before making charges as serious as those she made today. I would ask her to apologize.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, if I have in any way injured or embarrassed the Hon. Member, I sincerely apologize. I really felt that, having posed those questions, it must have been his absence that inspired them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think all Hon. Members know that there is a tradition in the House of creative use of language from time to time. I thank the Hon. Member for raising that point of order and would encourage all Members to refrain from mentioning the presence or absence of any other Member because, in fact, that is the rule of the House.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Government House Leader, the distinguished President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn), what business he intends to call over the next week. In particular I would like to ask him, if he is so serious about having the NORAD agreement studied by committee, whether he would use his authority and responsibility to put it on the Order Paper, and call it for debate. He does not need the consent of the Official Opposition for that purpose. He may not realize, although he should as Government House Leader, that debate in Parliament has to have its focus on the floor of the House. He seems to be embarrassed by that but he is very wrong in that. Certainly if he does this he will find the motion will not receive protracted debate; he is quite wrong in suggesting that. It will have reasonable debate which will show the significant attention he should pay to this important subject.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted, I would like to respond to the distinguished House Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Gray). I want first to deal with the business of the House for the coming week. I would like to assure the Hon. Member that I, representing the Government, have attempted on every occasion to consult fully with him and the representative of the New Democratic Party. I have tried to take into account their valid points of view and to argue them out of their invalid points of view. In that connection the Hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition made a request through my office this morning with respect to the business of the House next week. To show what a swell guy I am, I accepted his suggestion and have altered the business of the House for the next week in order to accommodate the Official Opposition.
Rather than having an allotted day tomorrow, we are going to deal with Government business. We will continue consideration of Bill C-39, which is an Act to provide for the making of supplementary fiscal equalization payments to certain provinces for the period April 1, 1982 to March 31, 1987. I hope that will be disposed of tomorrow after a reasonable debate as I think this is an important matter which deserves urgent attention.
We will then follow with a Bill entitled "An Act to dissolve the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation and to amend the Surplus Crown Assets Act and other Acts in consequence thereof', which is going to be introduced later this day by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Andre).
To accommodate the Official Opposition, I propose to designate Monday as the third allotted day in the Supply period. Tuesday the House will begin consideration at report stage of Bill C-15, which is Investment Canada. When we finish that Bill on Tuesday we will move on to the report stage of Bill C-18.
On Wednesday, if we have not completed consideration of Bill C-18, we will continue with consideration of report stage and possibly get to third reading of that legislation which, I
April 18, 1985

understand, has now received very thorough consideration in committee and has the general support of all Members. After the consideration of Bill C-18 on Wednesday we will move to Bill C-40, which is an Act to amend the Customs Act. Mr. Speaker, 1 look forward to Thursday. In the event that we do not complete the consideration of Bill C-15 on Tuesday, I would propose to bring that Bill forward for further consideration on Thursday next.
With respect to the NORAD reference, the Standing Committee of the House of Commons has an unprecedented opportunity to consider this important treaty for one full year in advance of the renewal date. As the Hon. House Leader will know, I proposed to him and to the House Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Deans) that this matter go immediately to committee for the purpose of allowing the committee to have a full year to consider, in the fullest context, every aspect of that particular treaty and its implications for Canada.
I received the consent of the New Democratic Party to have that matter go forward immediately. They were prepared to do that before Easter. Unfortunately, as I indicated in the course of Question Period, the Liberal Party insisted on having a full debate with respect to this matter prior to it going to committee. I think the Official Opposition has it all turned around backwards. We should first investigate and then have a debate with respect to the results of the investigation of the committee. I urge the Hon. House Leader to allow us to go forward with this reference. I am sure that all Members of the House are very interested in having this opportunity which we present, which was never given to us by the predecessor Government.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, although I am sure the Hon. House Leader is not intending to do so, in asking the Official Opposition to allow us to get on with the reference he is inadvertently creating a very misleading impression. The Government does not need the permission of the Official Opposition to put the motion to refer the matter to committee on the Order Paper. He does not need the permission of the Official Opposition to call that motion for debate. There are many provisions in the rules to limit debate if, in the opinion of the Government, the Opposition Parties are taking undue time.
Contrary to his recollection, I at no time said that we wanted to have a protracted or a full debate. I said that we wanted to have the motion called for debate and to have a limited number of speeches. I stand by what I said in that regard. If he would care to consult with me he will find a disposition, in line with my usual attitude of co-operation, to have the motion go forward relatively swiftly after a limited number of speeches. He must accept his responsibilities, put the motion on the Order Paper and call it for debate, it in fact he is serious about having the matter of the NORAD agreement go to committee for full study.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will allow the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn) an opportunity to respond. However, as previous Speakers have indicated, this period is for
Business of the House
announcing business. The negotiations concerning that business should occur somewhere else.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I take the previous statement by the Opposition House Leader as a question and my response will be very brief. The reason why 1 negotiate with the Opposition Party leaders is that I want to make the fullest use of the very limited time we have available for debate on a number of important issues. I could move ahead unilaterally but then I would be criticized by the Hon. Member for proceeding with motions before discussing these matters with the Opposition Parties.
I am quite prepared to accept what the honourable House Leader said. I will pursue this matter with him and discuss it with my distinguished colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen), who is anxious to get before this committee and answer all questions that the Hon. Member may want to pose.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, 1 would not be at all surprised if we resolve this.
In considering Government business, would the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn) keep in mind that Motion No. 16 under Government Business refers specifically to the question of twin-tracking that is presently taking place through western Canada and the effect of that on native and other communities. Might he consider calling that motion for further debate at an early opportunity?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, as you know, my colleagues the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) have demonstrated sensitivity and concern with respect to this matter and have involved themselves in very considerable negotiation with the people of British Columbia.
I can only say that I will take the Hon. Member's remarks as a representation in terms of the desire of the Hon. Member to have that brought forward as an item for debate. I think there is a resolution coming with respect to the matter on the basis of consultation. If we can get co-operation with respect to other items of Government business on the Order Paper, this would help free some time in order to deal with this important matter.

April 18, 1985
Tabling of Documents



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Regional Development.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


DISASTERS
Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 46(2), I am tabling in both official languages the summary of action taken by the Government of Canada in relation to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Ocean Ranger marine disaster.


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
[Stage Direction]
TABLING OF DOCUMENT ENTITLED "THE REGULATION OF CANADIAN FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS: PROPOSALS FOR DISCUSSION"
Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I hereby table in both official languages two copies of the document entitled "The Regulation of Canadian Financial Institutions: Proposals for Discussion".



REFORM OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of the Standing Order 46(2) I have the honour to table in both official languages copies of the Government's comprehensive response to the first report of the Task Force on Reform of the House of Commons, as requested by the committee pursuant to Standing Order 69(13). I know that the distinguished chairman of that committee is in the House and I applaud him and members of the committee for their excellent work.


STATEMENT ON TASK FORCE REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I have just tabled the response of the Government to the first report of the Task Force on parliamentary reform. I was very pleased to do so because my colleagues and I, under the leadership of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), have long held the view that the Government can only be a true instrument of the Canadian people if it is accountable to them through Parliament.
The Government was anxious to proceed with reform immediately following its election last fall. However, we recognized that Members of Parliament had to lead the effort for reform and that meaningful changes in the rules and structure of the House of Commons could only come about as a result of co-operation and consensus between members of all Parties. It was for that reason that the commitment to create a Task Force on the Reform of the House of Commons was outlined in the Speech from the Throne.
The members of the task force have taken their mandate to heart and produced a unanimous report which proposes significant changes to the rules of the House and the role of Members of Parliament. Therefore, I am pleased to tell the House that the Government supports the adoption of the majority of the task force's recommendations and we propose a trial period of one year in accordance with past practice with respect to the implementation of new and provisional rules.
As Members will know, reforms proposed in the last Parliament by the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure formed the basis for the Provisional Standing Orders under which the House now functions. The Government believes that the recommendations contained in the first report complete the work undertaken by the special committee. For that reason, it is appropriate to adopt the recommendations contained in the first report of the task force at this time rather than waiting for a final report of the task force.
That having been said, the Government proposes to deal with all future reports of the task force as a package in order to avoid a piecemeal approach to parliamentary reform. As the final report of the task force is expected before the House adjourns for the summer recess, we believe this will not impose any delay in the reform effort.
Having outlined the general background, I would like to turn to a discussion of some of the specifics of those recommendations. The Government has noted its technical concerns about specific recommendations in the annex to the comprehensive response. In no instance have we found an obstacle that cannot be overcome. As you know, the task force has proposed that a change be made in the method of electing the occupant of the Chair. Although there is no reason to believe that there would be any need to elect a Speaker within the one-year trial period being recommended by the Government, we feel that this is an integral part of the reforms suggested by the task force and that the incorporation of this proposal in the experimental rules would send an important message to Members about our commitment to ensuring their increased participation in House affairs.

April 18, 1985

By agreeing to include Private Members and Members of the Opposition on the Board of Internal Economy, the Government will be asking Members to take responsibility for the management of the House of Commons, to meet the needs of Members and to make informed and accountable decisions about matters which impact upon public expenditures.
Independence in the management of the institution will be paralleled by an increased independence in the legislative operations of the House. The Government has and will continue to have the right and responsibility to initiate legislation, but Private Members must play a greater role in the legislative process. For example, we agree that the scheduling of Private Members' Business could more appropriately be done by the Table Officers than by the Government House Leader's office. Private Members should not feel that their right to initiate legislation is controlled by the Government or any Minister of that Government.
This is also the thrust of the recommendation that any four members of a House committee be permitted to initiate a meeting on due notice. In agreeing to adopt this proposal, the Government is taking a major step toward increasing real authority of the committees of the House.
More and more, the substantive work of Parliament will be done in its committees. By providing committees with greater independence and by increasing their budgets and staff resources, the Government hopes that Members of Parliament will apply their considerable skills not only to the study and improvement of legislation, but also to the analysis of major issues. When we create legislative committees, we will free the standing committees to devote their full time to the consideration of estimates, annual reports and special studies.
As well, it is the Government's hope that the removal of the automatic provision for questions of confidence on votable Supply motions will encourage the Opposition to bring forward substantive policy proposals for the consideration of the House.
Finally, we were pleased to see the recommendation that statements by Ministers be streamlined to ensure that time is not lost from the consideration of Government business. Contrary to the practice in recent years, this Government has made a conscientious effort to make major policy statements in the House and I believe there have been at least 20 occasions when major statements have been made by Ministers in the House. I might add that we have taken these steps at the expense of time which would have been available for Government business in the House. We believe the appropriate place to announce and debate policy is in the House, not, with the greatest of deference, in the National Press Theatre.
Since the task force report was tabled in the House, the Government has engaged in consultations with members of all Parties and a consensus in support of the task force recommendations has emerged. As I have said, the Government would like to see reforms introduced as a co-operative effort and I would like to thank my colleagues, particularly those in the Opposition, for the role they have played in this regard. The job is not finished. It is my intention to meet with the
House of Commons Reform
Opposition House Leaders in the very near future to discuss the timetable and method of implementation of the proposed reforms in accordance with the spirit that has prevailed up to this point with respect to consultation.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), the Chairman-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), the Vice-Chairman, and the Hon. Member for Win-nipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), the second Vice-Chairman of this committee.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I know something of the hard work that has taken place in this committee. I know all of us in this House share the sentiment of appreciation toward these Hon. Members and the other distinguished members of the task force. 1 congratulate these members of the task force. They have produced an excellent report. I wish them success in their continuing deliberations and look forward to receiving their further reports and ultimately their final report before the summer recess.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all Members who have been following the progress of parliamentary reform are pleased to hear today's statement by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn). A great deal of thought by the special committee on parliamentary reform in the last Parliament went into the report upon which the recommendations of the present task force were founded, and there is a general consensus that the ideas deserve a good trial.
I am looking forward to meeting with the President of the Privy Council and the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) to discuss the details of the implementation of these measures and I hope that the Government will be ready with the specific proposals that will make it possible to clarify any minor difficulties that could exist.
We in this Party are quite prepared to endorse a different system for electing the Speaker, but we do not see much sense in putting in a new system for one year only in view of the very small likelihood of our having to elect another Speaker in this Parliament, unless the President of the Privy Council is trying to tell us something about which we have not been previously aware!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Similarly, we do not see the need for a one-year experiment with regard to the composition of the Commissioners of Internal Economy. There is so great a consensus on adding Private Members, including Opposition Members, to the management council of the House of Com-

April 18, 1985
House of Commons Reform
mons that 1 cannot understand why any experiment should be necessary.
Most other parliamentary jurisdictions have adopted an all-Party approach to such matters, and I would not think that we would be well served by delaying a permanent solution as recommended by the task force. Let us do this as soon as possible by bringing forward permanent amendments to the legislation in question, because as we know this requires a legislative change rather than simply having to amend our Standing Orders.
We welcome also the acceptance of the recommendations regarding statements in the House. I would say to the President of the Privy Council, however, that this change will work only if he insists that his colleagues adhere rigorously to his regime of giving ample notice of the statement, as well as providing copies of it, to the Opposition critics well in advance. I know that the hon. gentleman has tried to persuade his colleagues to co-operate, but on a number of occasions they have not done so. I want to commend those Ministers who endeavour to make that system work, even when it is decided to give a statement only shortly before the House opens. 1 could give a bit of a report card on those who have made it work and those who have not, but I think those to whom I could refer will know who they are. This procedure will work only if Ministers will co-operate and only in this way will an increase in the use of Minister's statements in fact enhance the role of this House of Commons.
The small alteration in arranging Private Members' Business certainly is acceptable to the Official Opposition, but the suggestion by the Government that a failure to provide 24 hours' notice results in the loss of Private Members' Business lends itself too readily to manipulation by a Government wanting to find a few extra hours of Government time. It is not unknown after all for Government back-benchers to respond readily to the Ministry's suggestions, if not outright direction.
The most interesting changes, of course, will be with regard to committees. The provision of budgets and staff is long overdue, but Members should remember that this places more demands on them rather than fewer. We must guard against creating committee bureaucracies. They must be instruments, tools, of service to the Members of Parliament in their work, not their masters.
With respect to the proposals regarding changes in the committee system, I must say I personally have some questions and there are questions that could be raised about the concept of legislative committees. In a House the size of ours, I believe that specialized committees are best suited to dealing with legislation; but our Party is certainly willing to see how the recommendations for legislative committees work for a one-year trial period. I am quite concerned, however, that the Government is already trying to dilute the effectiveness of the experiment by not agreeing to make Ministers members of legislative committees on their own Bills. This is a very serious departure from the concept of legislative committees and makes me wonder how seriously the Government is really prepared to take Parliament in this important area. After all,
Mr. Speaker, there are already disturbing signs that Ministers of the current Government are not taking our current committees as seriously as they should when it comes to willingness to attend committee hearings, to stay at those hearings for the appropriate length of time and in fact to give due notice of when they are ready to come before a committee.
As far as dealing with tax bills in a committee other than a Committee of the Whole is concerned, I became convinced of the need for this many years ago when I had the responsibility of steering such matters through the House. I would hope that as far as possible most Ways and Means Bills would be considered in the same legislative committee because they are so interrelated.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to try and deal with all the recommendations but let me say that I welcome the willingness of the Government to try these experiments. I hope the Government will not succumb to any temptation to try to use the more complex committee system to diffuse the political process for its own objectives or to try to use the changes only to keep otherwise errant Government backbenchers busy. Most important, I hope all Members realize that these experimental rules mean more work, not less. New rules in themselves do not automatically make Parliament better; only the diligent work of Members can do that. In the meantime I await the call of the President of the Privy Council to discuss the details and terms of the proposed experiment.
I want to congratulate all members of the task force on their work. We await with interest their further reports and the Government's response to these reports.
This House of Commons and its committees are fundamental to the functioning, the very existence, of our democratic system of government. It is in the interest of all Canadians that we strive on an on-going basis to make the House and its committees as relevant and as effective as possible in terms of the needs of the country and its people. I believe the report will make a real contribution to achieving these objectives.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating the committee. I know the hard work that went into the development of the report, both in the past and the report on which the committee is currently working.
I want to say something about the committee. The committee could well serve as a model for other committees. The way the committee has worked together, the way the committee has sought consensus, and the way the committee has worked in what I think could reasonably be described as a relatively non-partisan way I hope will be an example for the committees that will flow from the report we have before us here today.
There is no question that Parliament will be effectively changed by the recommendations being adopted which the Government House Leader indicated the Government is will-
April 18, 1985

ing to see implemented here today. We are going to see Parliament move from what has been a somewhat misunderstood institution, I suspect, into a reasonably modern age. With the change, however, there will be a shift in the focus of Parliament.
While much of the focus of Parliament, from a public point of view, has been here in the House of Commons until now, with the new committee structure, funding arrangements and staffing arrangements that will be made available, a lot of the work that previously was done here will now be done by the committees. Therefore, the public of Canada will also have to adjust to the changed focus of Parliament. In addition, if the committees do in fact take their lead from the special committee's example and if the chairmen of the committees that will be established can take their lead from the work of the chairman of this committee, I am confident that the work of Parliament will be enhanced by the recommendations being adopted.
Like many Members, I am somewhat apprehensive, but nevertheless willing to go ahead with the change. It was our view that this committee, having worked as it did, deserved to see its recommendations implemented. We ought not to adjust unecessarily any of the recommendations. It may well be that the question of having Ministers as members of committees studying their legislation is something that will require additional thought. Although the Government has indicated that perhaps it is not prepared to proceed with that change, after our discussions maybe there will be a way to incorporate it in the final recommendation that will become legislation and will become part of the temporary rules of the House of Commons come September of this year. It is to that that I want to address myself.
It is very important, now that we have the Government's response-a response which I might say I welcome and a response which I might say is pleasantly surprising-that we set about to work out the methods of implementation. We do not have a lot of time. The rules will have to be in place by this summer in order that those who are going to have the responsibility for administering, whether it be the Table Officers, the Speaker, the committee chairmen or the administration of the House of Commons, will have time to become fully aware of the changes that have taken place and to put in place the mechanisms necessary to allow for the changes to be effective.
For example, the request for ways to ensure adequate funding for committees will have to receive serious discussion about how that will take place, what methods will be used to determine budgets and who will be responsible for the final decisions on matters such as that. Therefore, those things must be put in place very quickly.
The other matter that strikes me as making very much sense is the proposal to include opposition Members among those who administer the House of Commons. It is quite clear that, since the Commissioners of Internal Economy deal primarily with matters relating to those things directly responsible to Parliament, Parliament itself has to be represented on that, all of Parliament and not just simply the Government side. There-
House of Commons Reform
fore, I welcome the proposal from the committee in the first place and the Government's acceptance of the proposal to establish a place for the Opposition.
I trust that the recommendation will be interpreted in such a way as to make sure that both opposition Parties will be represented. I would certainly find myself somewhat less supportive if that were not to be the case. For example, I would not like to see members of the Liberal Party left out. I want them there.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Have you thought this through?


Ian Deans: I thought it through. When we replace them as the Official Opposition, I will still want them there.


Lloyd Axworthy: Can you get there in a wheelchair?


Ian Deans: I may be able to get there in a wheelchair with the assistance of my friend. Having said that, I do think it is an important matter that has to be looked at.
The other reason for speed-not haste but speed-is that the rules of the House are again being reviewed by yet another standing committee of the House in addition to the special committee. It is in the process of reviewing the rules for technical changes. Clearly if that committee is to do its work, it has to know exactly what the disposition of the recommendations is to be.
I close by saying that I commend the Government for taking this step. I want everyone watching to recognize I have said that because frequently I have been told that never in my life have I congratulated the Government. Today I do. That is a momentous moment in the history of Parliament. I commend the Government for taking that step. Now the task is to get it into legislative form and do it quickly, not rush it through at the last minute.


Mr. Ouellet:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn).
First, I should like to congratulate him on the Government's decision to accept the first report of the committee. In my opinion, this is the kind of encouragement of which the Chairman of the Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), is particularly deserving, but it is encouraging as well for all other committee members who have worked very hard under the able guidance of their chairman and who have spared neither energy nor time to draft these recommendations.
Here is my question: Can the Minister give us the assurance that these recommendations, which have been endorsed by the Government, will be implemented when the parliamentary session resumes, at the latest by next September?
Second, since the Minister knows that the second report was tabled and that it has to do with structural changes, particularly concerning the voting procedure in the House and better

April 18, 1985
House of Commons Reform
facilities for parliamentarians in some committee rooms, would the Government agree to the proposed changes and carry out major projects this summer so that, when we return in September, the new voting system would be in place, if that is the wish of the Government? I imagine some of the structural changes will require some time, and I am concerned about the remarks of the Minister who seemed to imply that, with respect to the second and subsequent reports of our committee, the Government might wait to give an overall response to all our recommendations. I think an exception should be made at least in the case of those recommendations of the second report which might entail summer work.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, may I deal with these matters raised by hon. friend in sequence. We certainly do intend to have a target date on the introduction and implementation of all the provisions in the first report, and which are the subject of the responses which I have tabled today, in place by the time the House resumes its business after the recess which takes place in July and August.
Obviously we are not oblivious of the fact that there has been a report of the committee. That report addresses itself specifically in terms of accommodation and structural changes that will be required with respect to the facilities of the House. I did not intend to give the impression to the Hon. Member or any other Member that somehow we are going to delay the implementation of any subsequent report. Indeed, the contrary is the fact. We will want to move quickly on giving a full response and indeed we look forward to hearing the final report of the committee so that we can look at it in its total context.
There has been a disposition by Members of Parliament represented by the House Leaders to move forward on these matters. As the Hon. Member will know, we had an unprecedented occasion on which all three House Leaders, arm in arm, cheek by jowl, shoulder to shoulder appeared before the task force. There was an amazing degree of unanimity in the presentation which we made. We discussed the matter and attempted to meet the various questions of the members of that task force. One of the things upon which we all agreed, I think, is that in accordance with the tradition that we have established, we should implement these matters on a provisional basis for a period of one year to iron out the kinks so that we can in fact review these matters at the end of that period of time and make improvements after we have had the benefit of experience.
In terms of the facilities of this institution, we will have to make accommodation for the new legislative committees and we will have to look at what we have to do in terms of making appropriate space available. I simply say to the Hon. Member that I hear from members of the committee that they have very great ideas and some very important initiatives they want to bring forward. They have talked about the precincts of the House of Commons and the creation of an intendant of
Parliament with respect to its facilities. I do not want to make structural changes and find later on that I have offended the intendant who is subsequently appointed after consideration by the House of Commons, if that is the will of the House.
I assure the Hon. Member that we will carry out the spirit of the first report and make sure that there is full consultation. We will make sure that all Members of Parliament, through House Leaders and members of the task force, are consulted so that we will have something of which we can all be proud and something in the evolution of which we can all feel that we have taken part.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes to say that, having had the opportunity to serve on the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure in the last Parliament and now serving on the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons, I am glad the Government has taken the initiative and indicated its support for the reforms that were suggested in the first report. I would say briefly that the Government could have gone a little further. It could have used some elements from the second report such as those that did not have to wait for subsequent reports. It could have acted all at once to bring in not only the reforms that were contained in the first report but also a handful of those contained in the second report. In any event, there were only a handful of reforms contained in the second report.
If the Government House Leader felt he needed to put off the recommendations vis-a-vis the intendant of Parliament which was recommended in the second report, that is fair enough, but I do not see that that was just cause for putting off some of the other relatively minor reforms that could have been implemented now without leaving the Government open to the accusation that it was engaging in parliamentary reform in a piecemeal fashion. I appreciate that concern. It is just too bad that the Government did not seize the moment to do a bit more than it has indicated it intends to do. I would encourage-


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect, does the Hon. Member have a question?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Do I have a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, this is a question period. I appreciate the importance of the issue. It is, however, a question period.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Perhaps the Government House Leader has already indicated this, but I was not able to be here for the beginning of his remarks. I would like to ask him just what kind of time frame he had in mind for getting the House to act and to actually put these things into place so that they can be ready when he wants them to be ready.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member's question, as we indicated to the task force when all three House Leaders appeared before it, we thought that an appropriate time would be the commencement of the sittings of the House in September. This would give us ample opportunity to make a number of adjustments in terms of ensuring
April 18, 1985

that the Standing Orders are in proper form, that facilities have been looked at and that there has been a reasonable interlude from the parliamentary life that we experience while the House is in session.
In terms of the observations made with respect to why we did not respond to parts of the second report, the answer is quite simple. It was not by virtue of any intention on our part to forestall consideration of these matters, but to get where we are today involved a consultative process. I could have returned to the drawing board and consulted with House Leaders again to make sure that everyone was on side with respect to additional recommendations. However, and I think other House Leaders would share this view, I wanted to do this on a basis that was not unilateral, however admirable or meritorious the report may be. Accordingly, we opted to respond to this report as requested by the committee and in the course of that we indicated that we would like to look at the final results of the task force to see where we are in the total context.
Again, I reiterate the fact that we on the government side are committed to early action with respect to items that find the approval of the House of Commons through the task force report. I do not say this in any partisan sense, but I do not think anyone who has listened to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) speak on this topic and doubt the will of the Government to move forward with respect to the recommendations of this committee. We hold the members of this committee and the process under which they operate in very high regard. We intend to use our responsibilities as a Government to support the task force in its excellent work.


PETITIONS
Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition from 561 of my constituents urging the Government of Canada to continue Canada Works funding for reforestation programs in the Province of British Columbia.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of presenting a petition signed by 81 members and friends of the Happy Handicapped Club of Thunder Bay who register their opposition to the CNCP application for deregulation of the present telephone system.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present. The first focuses on the cutbacks which are taking place in unemployment insurance support and in particular severance pay and other changes. It
Introduction of Bills
is signed by over 1,700 residents of Essex-Windsor. The second petition focuses specifically on severance pay changes and early retirement and is signed by additional residents of Essex-Windsor.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table on behalf of 1,700 Canadian citizens exercising their rights a petition similar to that submitted by the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon). It is signed by 1,700 people, mostly from the Windsor area. It protests changes already made and yet to be made in respect to UIC benefits affecting working people. I have a second petition from Toronto protesting the actions taken with respect to severance and vacation pay as they affect UIC benefits.



RAOUL WALLENBERG HONORARY CITIZENSHIP ACT


Guy Ricard: for leave to introduce Bill C-234, to proclaim Raoul Wallenberg to be an honorary citizen of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Explain.


Guy Ricard: Mr. Speaker, as you have said, the purpose of this Bill is to make Raoul Wallenberg an honorary citizen of Canada in recognition of his humanitarian effort during the Second World War.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read a second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

April 18, 1985
Introduction of Bills



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE ACT


Hon. Bill McKnight (for the Minister of Agriculture) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-41, an Act to repeal the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and to amend the Crop Insurance Act in consequence thereof.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: for leave to introduce Bill C-42, an Act to dissolve Canagrex and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (for the Minister of Supply and
Services) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-43, an Act to dissolve the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation and to amend the Surplus Crown Assets Act and other Acts in consequence thereof.
Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, there are two orders of reference with which I want to deal at this point in time, on the basis of consent. There have been consultations with the opposition Parties and if Your Honour were to put these motions forward-they are references-you will find that there is unanimous consent. The first order of reference is to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs and reads as follows:
That the document entitled "The Regulation of Canadian Financial Institutions: Proposals for Discussion," tabled earlier this day, be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs;
That the Committee examine and report on the proposals contained therein;
That the Committee be empowered to retain expert, clerical and secretarial staff as may be deemed necessary; and
That the Committee submit its final report to the House of Commons no later than September 30, 1985.
That reference has received the assent of all Parties and if you put it, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be adopted unanimously.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the introduction of this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent for the adoption of the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

['Agreed.']
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, again I think you will find there is unanimous consent for the order of reference to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, which reads as follows:
That the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs be empowered to consider the circumstances leading up to the support package offered to the Canadian Commercial Bank as approved in Bill C-37, the Canadian Commercial Bank Financial Assistance Act as passed by the House on March 28, 1985; and
That the Committee submit its findings to the House no later than May 31, 1985.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the introduction of the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent for the adoption of the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
April 18, 1985

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 141, 159 and 302.


Mrs. Killens: 1.	Does the Minister for External Relations intend to inform the House of the results of her meeting with the members of the Development Aid Committee of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development which was held in Paris on December 3 and 4, 1984?
2.	(a) What is the list of the delegation members (b) did other persons accompany the Canadian delegation and, if so, what are their names?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister for External Relations):: 1.
Ministers of the Crown are always accountable to the House for their activities, both during the Oral Question Period and in its committees.
2. (a) Mrs. Monique Vezina, Minister for External Relations, Mr. W. J. Jenkins, Ambassador, Permanent Representative to the OECD, Mr. J-G. St. Martin, Vice-President (Policy), Canadian International Development Agency, Mrs. A.-M. Doyle, Deputy Director, International Finance and Development Division, Department of Finance, Mr. A. Morantz, Director, Economic Relations with Developing Countries Division, Mr. C. Laverdure, Senior Departmental Assistant, Office of the Minister, Mrs. A. Leahy, Counsellor, Delegation to OECD.
(b) Michel Amar, Special Assistant to the Minister, Michel Dompierre, Special Assistant to the Minister.
EM&R-CUTS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS


Mr. Orlikow: Has the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources cut any projects in its science and technology programs in order to absorb the reduction in its expenditures required by the economic statement made by the Minister of Finance in the House on November 8, 1984 and, if so, what are they and what are the projected costs?


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Yes.
Energy Research & Development Program
Energy Conservation: Industrial Energy Conservation R&D Buildings Transportation Demand Energy Systems
Expenditure Reduction from Reference Levels Approved in Operation Plan 1985-1986


[Stage Direction]
Remaining Resources for 1985-1986 for Depart mcntal/Secior Activities in Program
[Stage Direction]
Supplementary Fiscal Equalization Payments
Renewable Energy:
Geothermal	500,000	395,000New Liquid Fuels: Biological Processes	1,761,000	1.019,000Fuel Processing	1.000,000	3,743,000Fuel Use	700,000	2,717,000Flydrogcn and Energy Storage	353.000	360,000Oil, Gas, Electricity: Gcoscicntific R&D	1,058,000	2,012,000Marine Engineering	100,000	338,000Enhanced Oil Recovery	456,000	675.000Materials for Offshore Structures	296,000	2,370,000
Mr. Gagliano: Did the Minister of State (Small Business) consult the Canadian Bankers' Association about the user fee amendments in Bill C-23, now before the House and, if so (a) in what location and on what date did the consultation take place (b) what was the Association's position on the amount of the fee, and on whether the borrower or the lender should pay the fee?


Hon. Andre Bissonnette (Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: The Minister of State (Small Businesses) consulted with the Canadian Bankers' Association about the user fee amendments in Bill C-23, in Toronto on March 14, 1985 and in Ottawa on March 19, 1985. The Association advised that a one time up-front fee at the 1 per cent level would be equitable to all parties and that such fee should be paid by the borrower.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall (for the Minister of Finance) that Bill C-39, an Act to provide for the making of supplementary fiscal equalization payments to certain provinces for the period April 1, 1982 to March 31, 1987, be now read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
[Stage Direction]
April 18, 1985
Supplementary Fiscal Equalization Payments
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, in the warm-up just before the luncheon break, I was addressing the central principle and purpose of this legislation, which is to provide for a response to one of the fundamental responsibilities within the federal Government-to ensure a fair sharing of equity across Canada in terms of the distribution of benefits and certainly the distribution of economic opportunities. I was making the case that one of the serious transgressions and uncertainties which has become the hallmark of the recent Government is its lack of attention and sensitivity to those issues, and that in fact the whole thrust of its economic program is not a thrust at all, but a scattered, disorganized, chaotic, random set of actions which has no coherence as far as a regional development program is concerned. We only have to return to the November 8 statement for proof of that. It is recognized that those areas which are most disadvantaged suffer the most severely by federal government cut-backs. There is a direct relationship and axiom between the two. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen) has become one of the alltime slashers of history. In fact, it is a deliberate attack upon the regional foundations of Canada. We saw a clear example of this today in Question Period. His advisory committee was given the objective of trying to reduce the deficit and in fact chose an area of programming dealing with economic benefits for native people. That is the choice which it made as the basis for its so-called reduction. Once again, those least able to protect themselves and those most in need of economic opportunity will be the victims of this peculiar and ill-thought-out approach to economic matters in Canada.
Certainly we see it not only in the cut-backs in industrial development programs, in investments in public infrastructure, in transportation, in research and in the environment, but we see it, perhaps most seriously, in the erosion of other forms of transfer programs.
I should like to talk about one program in particular, the unemployment insurance program. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has made it quite clear that he intends to transfer a large proportion of the present premium rate of unemployment insurance back to the tax rolls. This means that the unemployment insurance program, which probably nets a full $2 billion of transfers to the poorer regions of Canada to ensure at least some basic level of income stability, will not be subject to entitlements under the Unemployment Insurance Act, but to the whims and caprices of the Minister of Finance and his officials at tax time. In fact, we will see a total erosion of the program. We have already seen cut-backs in severance pay and on pension rights. Who does that hurt? It is not the well-to-do nor the members of the "Mulroney Club". It hurts people who are faced with economic disadvantage. Those are the ones who are affected by those kinds of cuts, not the friends of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who are paying a hundred dollars for special access and special privilege. The ones who are really being hurt are those in the region.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: I see Conservative Members are coming to life. I suppose it is because they are not members of the club. They went through that awkward stage of getting themselves elected as Members of Parliament only to find out it is really the people who can afford it who get special access to the Prime Minister. That is the way the system works. I give my deep sympathies to members of that caucus that they have been so excluded from the privileged circle of access and information, but that is something that they will have to work out for themselves.
The point I am making is that this attempt by the Government to build one block upon another has become a major withdrawal of commitments to regional development. In my own Province of Manitoba the evidence is very clear. As a result of the November 8 statement, the minimum reduction of job levels in that province was 4,000 permanent jobs, to say nothing of the 2,000 summer jobs which were lost. That is clearly reflected in the substantially increased unemployment statistics for that province. The withdrawal of federal investment in a number of important projects, the slowing down of the Churchill program, the withdrawal from the rebuilding of the railway cars at Transcona, the stoppage of the downtown programs, are all beginning to eat into the responsibility of the federal Government to invest in regions which do not have the economic wherewithal. Now Government has added insult to injury by bringing in on top of that a further reduction in the equalization payments. The two-year program which is announced in this Bill in fact will result in approximately a $60 million reduction according to the figures which were provided by the Minister of Finance himself; some $22 million in this fiscal year and some $37 million in the next fiscal year.
I go back to my point and the point which was raised by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Gar-neau), who argued that the equalization is so essential an underpinning to the whole question of regional equity and regional sharing, that it should not be one which is arbitrarily decided by this Government alone. Surely, in the spirit of co-operation and consultation and all the fine sounding promises which were made, this is an area which should certainly be discussed, but it was not. There was no agreement with the provinces. They were simply handed a fait accompli. The only access to information they had is when the Minister of Finance left his briefing books on a coffee table in a Winnipeg hotel. That was the only way they found out what the Department of Finance and the Minister were really thinking. That is a very unique and curious way to transfer information back to the provinces. It certainly saves on stamps, but the fact is that it does not result in the kind of sharing of information which is essential to make this kind of program work.
If one looks at the various tiers of assistance, one finds the withdrawal of direct grants by the federal Government in terms of investment in federal programs. If one looks at the transfer programs to individuals such as unemployment insurance, one finds withdrawal. If one looks at the basic fiscal transfer programs, one finds withdrawal. 1 would suggest to
April 18, 1985

you, Mr. Speaker, that the total equation cannot be added up simply by taking a look at one tier. We have to look at the entire set of withdrawals, and we find that the poor regions of this country are becoming the real victims of the so-called economic renewal. And to be a so-called winner or loser in this society really depends upon where one lives and which kind of club one belongs to and whether one can afford it.
I also want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the provinces themselves cannot absolve themselves entirely of responsibility in this matter. I believe one of the most useful reports, one which has been dropped like a hot potato by the Government because it provides too much incriminating evidence on its friends, is a report on the funding of post-secondary education across Canada. It points out that over a period of time the federal transfers for post-secondary education were going up on an average of 13 per cent each year, and the provinces were not in any way matching those transfers. In fact, in my own Province of Manitoba in 1977-78, the proportion of funding for operating grants to provincial colleges and universities by the federal Government was 80 per cent. By 1984-85, it had reached 103 per cent. That example is repeated in several other provinces. I know that there have been provincial Governments, mainly Tory in origin, which have banged the table and said they were getting a raw deal. The fact is that these figures clearly point out that what was happening was that the federal Government was doing more than its share. In no way were those funds being matched by the provincial Governments. As a result, federal funds were in fact supplementing or subsidizing other provincial expenditures. It would seem to me that one of the clear priorities of the Minister of Finance must be a direct response to the facts and figures provided in this report. This report demonstrates dramatically how the provincial Governments have been camouflaging in terms of fair sharing.
We are not saying that the federal Government, when it gets into questions related to fiscal arrangements between the provinces and the federal Government, should simply put more money on the table. But it should at least adopt some kind of bargaining attitude. It should at least come together with a total package in mind. What is it going to do on higher education? What is it going to do on unemployment insurance or regional development grants? That is the kind of effective federal-provincial initiative which we would recommend and which my colleague who spoke first in this debate strongly promoted and endorsed.
I would say, Mr. Speaker, to Hon. Members opposite that they should recognize that this is one of the vital issues with which they will have to deal. If they fail to come up with a clear, concise and coherent answer and response to the question of how to deal with regional inequities, and fail to make sure that federal and provincial Governments share equally in the responsibilities in that area, we will have a serious problem down the road in not being able to provide for proper economic opportunities for all Canadians. Once we are in that situation, the very basic underpinnings and foundations of this country are in danger.
Adjournment Motion


Mr. Winegard:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member of the Opposition whether his Government since 1977 took any active pains to come to an agreement with the provinces about the use of federal funds? Having sat on the other side of the fence, I can say that I never heard very much about what that Party wanted in terms of a federal input into the higher education system. I thought that Party was content to transfer the money. The people who were transferring the money now, suddenly, have this new-found conscience.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, all I can do is to ask the hon. gentleman who said he was on the other side what he was doing on the other side. For the past two and a half years there have been a series of federal-provincial meetings between the federal Secretary of State and the provincial Ministers of Education at which very clear demands were raised and very clear questions were asked about what could be the new formula after the EPF program came to an end. A number of formulas and proposals were put on the table to try to get provincial Governments to at least match up to their obligations which were to maintain some consistent level of support. So there was no lack of concern being expressed both privately and publicly. There was no lack of formulas being put on the table and no lack of negotiating going forward. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that by this time, if we had been re-elected, the solution would have been found.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there any other questions or comments?


André Ouellet: Debate, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the next Hon. Member for debate, who is going to be the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Minaker), it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart)-Housing-(a) Decision to cut budget for housing renovation program, (b) Request that Government give supplementary funding; the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie)-Enviromental Affairs-(a) Trans-Canada Highway chemical spill-Government's knowledge of incidents, (b) Request for investigation; and the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria)-Energy-(a) Notification of Ontario Premier, (b) Prime Minister's meeting with Ontario Premier.

April 18, 1985
Supplementary Fiscal Equalization Payments



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall (for the Minister of Finance) that Bill C-39, an Act to provide for the making of supplementary fiscal equalization payments to certain provinces for the period April 1, 1982 to March 31, 1987, be now read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. George Minaker (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, it seems that every time I have the opportunity to speak in the House, you are in the chair, so I hope I will keep you interested today, as I have tried to in the past.
I would first like to commend the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) and her colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), for bringing forward Bill C-39. On behalf of my constituents and those Manitobans who feel we finally found a Government which recognized equalization payments were not the size they should be, I thank the Minister and the Government for the extra $115 million Manitoba will receive in the next two years. This Bill is an example of the fairness and good will which our Government has with respect to the provinces and to our country. It is also an example of the way our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) wants to see a fair and reasonable Government, and I commend the Government for taking the action it has taken in this particular Bill.
It is always interesting to see how the Opposition handles good legislation. I listened to the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) and the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau). The Hon. Member for Churchill stood up and thanked the Minister for part of the money and then proceeded to try to pat the NDP on the back by saying that Manitoba got more money becauses of the NDP Government and the NPD Members in the House of Commons. Therefore, I would like to quote the Minister of Finance from Hansard of April 1 when he made the announcement of this further payment to the six provinces which needed those additional funds. He said:
Mr. Speaker, I should first say that, unlike hon. members of the New Democratic Party who spend a lot of time crowing but get little action out of the noise they make, hon. members of the Conservative Party who reside in and represent Manitoba, have constantly dealt with me on a quiet basis on this issue. I can tell the Hon. Member that they were far more effective in their representations because they had substance and a good analytical basis for the statements they made, as opposed to the shrill rhetoric we received from the other Party.
1 think that says it in a nutshell. It is not necessary to get up in this House and bombard us with rhetoric.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: He said "no equalization" at a Liberal meeting in Manitoba.


Clement George Minaker: We will get to the Hon. Member for Win-nipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) in a minute.


André Ouellet: No!


Clement George Minaker: I think it is important to recognize that our Government did not have any legal obligation to extend these payments or to supplement the equalization payments. I have to remind the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides and the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry that they were in the Government and sat around the Cabinet table and made the decision in 1981 on changes to equalization payments. Because of opposition from the Progressive Conservative and NDP Members at that time, they brought in these transitional payments. So that I find it very difficult to take the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry seriously when he talks about sensitivity. They did not make any decision that was, in my opinion, sensitive to the needs of the provinces in 1981. I also find it difficult to take a person seriously with regard to sensitivity when he increases his office budget to, I think it was, $3.2 million from $1.2 million. I call that very insensitive to the spending of taxpayers' money.
I would also like to advise the House that there was a degree of consultation with respect to the PC caucus members from Manitoba. We consulted with a number of people from Manitoba. We met with presidents of universities, government officials and the provincial PC Opposition as well who made a very good presentation on why Manitoba was unique. I thank the Minister for recognizing that Manitoba has a unique economic situation and for seeing fit to give our province an extra $115 million over the next two years.
As I said, it is always interesting to see how the Opposition reacts to something like this. I do not know whether the Hon. Member for Churchill intended to do it, but in his presentation he gave the impression that this was the only money Manitoba was going to get from the federal Government. I think it is important to clarify that because I know Manitoba, like other provinces in our domain, will be getting transfer payments. For Manitoba it is somewhere in the order of about $1.25 billion, of which the equalization payment is part. So when you consider the other programs coming forward this year, these transfer payments, along with the additional $50 million this year, mean that the total payments will be in excess of what they were this past year. For that reason I say that the Government is being very fair with us and we appreciate that.
I want to commend the Minister for bringing forward the Bill at this time. It is good legislation. It is fair legislation. I hope the House will see fit to pass it so we can obtain Royal Assent so that the provinces who need this assistance will have use of that money this year.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member how, in congratulating the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) for the legislation, he reconciles himself with the statement made by the Premier of his province to the effect
April 18, 1985

that his province will have a shortfall in the fiscal year 1985-86 of $263 million, and a projected shortfall of $80 million in the fiscal year 1986-87 if this legislation is approved without amendment? I find the Hon. Member really does not truly represent the interests of his constituents and the people of his province in supporting the Minister of Finance instead of siding with the Premier of his province.


Clement George Minaker: I thank the Hon. Member for raising that question because I would suggest that it is an NDP Government which is in power in Manitoba and which has seen fit to double the deficit of the province over three years. It increased the deficit from something like $1.23 billion to over $2.5 billion in three years. If it cannot spend within its means then I cannot endorse or support that type of Government in Manitoba. But that is for the people of Manitoba to decide. I feel we were treated fairly. The previous Government, of which he was a part, made a decision that would result in a shortfall of $72 million this year. We have been able to find some $50 million to try to compensate for that. But I would like to draw to the Hon. Member's attention the fact that the existing shortfall in the equalization payment represents less than 2 per cent of the total revenue transferred by the federal Government. When compared to the total revenue which the Government of Manitoba collects, it is less than 1 per cent of that. I cannot support a decision to overspend and have a large deficit because I think it is wrong.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I gather from the remarks of the Hon. Member that he does not like the current Government in Manitoba. If we accept his line of argument, we have to conclude that the Conservative federal Government has the right to penalize the population of Manitoba. I think that is regrettable and unacceptable.
In answering my question the Hon. Member said that the NDP Government in Manitoba is spending too much. I submit that the Hon. Member does not understand what equalization payments are all about. I ask him to review the arrangements that have been in progress in Canada for a long period of time. In the process he might consult the Parliamentary Secretary who this morning gave a good history of equalization payments that are given by the federal Government to the have-not provinces in order to ensure equal services in the fields of education and health so that you can rest assured that wherever you live in Canada, because you are a Canadian, you are entitled to equal and fair services. I submit that the Hon. Member disregard the reasons that we have equalization payments. He is certainly not speaking on behalf of the people of Manitoba when he supports this legislation.


Clement George Minaker: Mr. Speaker, this is unbelievable. I do not agree with the policies of the present NDP Government and never will agree with the policies of over-spending to the point that it has over-spent. I believe a Government should have a conscience with respect to the future taxpayers of the country rather than spend willy-nilly because it feels it should.
Supplementary Fiscal Equalization Payments
I was the Minister of Community Services in the Province of Manitoba for several years. I am fully aware of what equalization payments are. I am also aware of the Canada Assistance Plan and medicare. I was trying to explain to the Hon. Member that the total equalization payment is part of the $1.25 billion in transfer payments. The $22 million shortfall this year that the NDP Government is talking about represents only about 1.7 per cent of that total $1.25 billion in transfer payments. I fully understand the equalization. I believe the $263 million he talked about was for the Province of Quebec rather than the Province of Manitoba.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I am provoked into entering this debate. I have some questions for the Member who has indicated that he could never support the policies which the New Democratic Government in Manitoba has put into effect. By this does he mean the policies that have established jobs as a priority within the budget-making process? Does he mean the policies that have made affirmative action a part of the encouragement policy to bring in foreign investors? Does he not support that? Does he also not support the attempt to provide, through hydro development, important export prospects for future income opportunities for the people of Manitoba? Does he not support the valiant fight that the Premier of Manitoba and his Cabinet have put on in order to force this Government, screaming and kicking, into accepting a somewhat fairer allocation of funds from the federal Government to that particular provincial Government?
Conservative Governments in British Columbia, while in search of restraint, have created huge levels of unemployment. The policy of emphasizing jobs in Manitoba has brought that province to a position where it has been recognized as the leader in job creation and job expansion across the country. During the period when the Hon. Member was a Minister in that particular province government policies led to an outflow of people. The new policies of the NDP Government have brought thousands of new people into Manitoba to take advantage of the opportunities and benefits of the progressive Government there.


Clement George Minaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not support a Government which has spent and spent until it has doubled the deficit in the Province of Manitoba within three years. Many of the policies are no different whether instituted by members of the NDP, by Conservative or by Liberals. Anyone who knew me in Manitoba as the Minister of Community Services would not argue that point.
If the Hon. Member will look at the StatsCan figures of the average number of those employed, he will see that within four years of the time that we took over government we had created
30,000	new permanent yearly average jobs. As of last December 31, the NDP had only created 14,000 new jobs, even with all the spending which the Hon. Member seems to support. Long-term jobs are not created strictly through Government spending money. Private industry must develop the jobs. That is the principle which I support.

April 18, 1985
Supplementary Fiscal Equalization Payments


Mr. Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a short question. I think the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) is either confused or is deliberately confusing the House. The Province of Manitoba is receiving $50 million this year and $65 million next year. Is it not true that, rather than in any way suffering from this deal, the Province of Manitoba is actually coming out in a better cash position than any other single province?


Clement George Minaker: Mr. Speaker, 1 believe the Hon. Member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Clark) is correct in what he has said. The Province of Manitoba will be receiving more funding this year than it did last year under the former Liberal Government. If the estimates continue in the way that they have, Manitoba will be receiving more money in 1986-87 than it will in 1985-86.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie).


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, before I say what I had intended to say, I would like to remark on the most recent comments of the Hon. Member for Win-nipeg-St. James (Mr. Minaker) who referred to the deficit in Manitoba solely within the category of spending. In the interests of intellectual honesty, the Member for Winnipeg-St. James ought to acknowledge that the deficit in Manitoba, as is the case with deficits in all the provinces in the country and in the federal Government, has as much to do with a shortfall in revenue due to the economic recession which we have just come through, as it has to do with government spending. Yet, we continue to hear this kind of rhetoric about spending from Conservative Members of Parliament, Conservative Governments, and Conservative MLAs, to the extent that one begins to wonder what kind of simple view they have of economics which allows them to talk about increased deficits without making distinctions between revenue shortfalls and increased government spending and between what money is and is not being spent on. The world is much more complicated than the Member for Winnipeg-St. James would have us believe. Perhaps the reason is that he and his colleagues do not realize the complexity of the issue. However, if they are going to speak about deficits they should take that into consideration.
Members, particularly those from the Conservative Party, should also talk about the balanced books that were left to the Progressive Conservatives who took over government in Saskatchewan in 1982. Conservative Members never recount the history of the balanced Budget in Saskatchewan and the fact that a Progressive Conservative administration not only suffered a general revenue shortfall after taking office in that province, as all Governments suffered as a result of economic conditions, but created a deliberate revenue shortfall by proceeding with its ludicrous promises about reducing certain taxes.
That province had a history of impeccable fiscal responsibility. It now has a deficit in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James could have mentioned that in his remarks, but it would not have lent credence to his argument.
Let me deal specifically with the Bill which introduces supplementary equalization payments. I would like to share with Members who are present and those people who may be watching some of the history of this regime. I recall the time when Bill C-97 was introduced by the former Liberal Government. The intention of that Bill was to establish a unilateral change in equalization payments.
I represented my Party in the committee that studied that Bill. At that time I collaborated with the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) who I believe moved a motion which 1 seconded in a rare moment of unanimity between the Hon. Member and myself. We have subsequently had occasion to agree with respect to the Canada Health Act, but with respect to Bill C-97, in a rare moment of unanimity the Hon. Member moved a motion, which I seconded, calling for an amendment to Bill C-97 which would have had the effect of doing what the Government is only partially accomplishing now, that is, restoring that money to Manitoba. Both the Hon. Member for Provencher and I felt at that time that that money rightfully belonged to Manitoba but that it was being deprived of it as a result of that Bill.
Immediately after the election on September 4, I wrote to the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare to remind him of our collaboration in 1982 and to ask him if he would use his influential position as a Cabinet Minister in the new Government to ensure that Manitoba had its $72 million restored.
It took a great deal of time for the Government to announce this legislation and many people were involved in bringing it forward. The Manitoba Government should receive a lot of credit for its persistence in insisting that the federal Government come up with that money. I believe that I can say with absolute assurance that this legislation would not be before us today if there were a Progressive Conservative Government in Manitoba, because that administration would have been silent in the interest of Party unity and federal-provincial relations. It would have had very little to say about the injustice being done to Manitoba.
However, as a result of there being an NDP Government in Manitoba, it was able to stand up to the federal Government and demand justice for our province. As a result of that stand over the last six months we are able to speak to this legislation today.
This legislation comes about also as a result of the efforts of many Manitobans who wrote to their Members of Parliament, to Progressive Conservative Members in the Cabinet, and who wrote in support of the Manitoba Government's position to let it be known that the federal Government should take action to redress the situation that was visited upon Manitoba unilaterally by the Liberals in 1982.
This legislation will provide in the first year $50 million to Manitoba of the $72 million which everyone believes is owed
April 18, 1985

to the Government. However, as the provincial Government has said and we have said, we welcome this action. While we are not satisfied completely, it is a response to a perceived injustice, and the Government should be commended to a degree for doing that. No one has disputed that fact but the history of the situation should be understood.
The only people who cannot take any credit for this are the Liberals. They originally brought about that unilateral injustice. I notice there are none of them present in the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I believe that earlier this day the Speaker advised Members of the House not to reflect on the presence or absence of Members in the Chamber. I believe there was an Hon. Member from that Party in the Chamber.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, if I was inaccurate in my remarks. I did not notice the Hon. Member at the front of the House.
In any event, it is only the Liberal Party of Canada that cannot take any political satisfaction from what is happening today because it is they who unilaterally brought about the injustice that is being partially corrected in this legislation. They are the ones who remained silent, for all intents and purposes, during the time when Manitobans of every political stripe were trying to persuade the federal Government to move in this respect.
I might say that it took some time to gain the support of some Manitobans. I am thinking of the Progressive Conservative Leader of the Opposition in Manitoba, Mr. Filmon. Although he aspires to be the Premier of the province, at that point, at least, he knew nothing of federal-provincial fiscal arrangements. At that time he was so naive as to suggest that the Manitoba Government had somehow agreed to this unilateral reduction. He did not know what he was talking about and I am sure he was advised of his mistake. Perhaps it was the Hon. Member for Provencher who had to tell him that this reduction in equalization payments for Manitoba was a unilateral action by the Liberals which the Conservatives as well as the Manitoba Government opposed at the time.
In fact, the Manitoba Government in the person of Vic Schroeder, the Minister of Finance, appeared before the committee to oppose that legislation. I am sure that Mr. Filmon was asked not to go around the province saying that the Manitoba Government agreed to that action because it would have been an embarrassment to the Conservatives to see that he did not know what he was talking about.
Some time later, the Leader of the Opposition in Manitoba must have been advised of the facts of the case and how this had really come about. Ultimately, Manitoba was able to present a united front with respect to the need for the federal Government to take this action.
I hope that background will be of assistance to those who want to know exactly what took place with respect to this issue and I hope that this legislation is an indication from the new
Supplementary Fiscal Equalization Payments
Government that it intends fully to respect the principle of equalization which is enshrined in our Constitution.
I believe that a number of improvements can be made to equalization, some of which were recommended by the special Task Force on Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements which reported in 1981 and on which I had an opportunity to serve. Those recommendations included an enriched equalization arrangement for those provinces that fall below a certain economic criterion. There are a number of other recommendations in that report concerning equalization that I would commend to the House for further study.
We know that in 1987 these will come up for renewal. I have suggested to the Minister of National Health and Welfare that he recommend to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) that perhaps Parliament should be involved in this review again, as it was prior to 1982, although the procedure did not work at that time because the Government operated unilaterally. However, there was a special parliamentary task force dealing with federal-provincial fiscal arrangements. Perhaps Members from all Parties should again be involved in a review of those arrangements. That might be a tradition well worth establishing and it would become a tradition if we did it again in anticipation of the 1987 agreement.
I hope the Government will give serious consideration to that recommendation which I am making now and which 1 have made before.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there any questions or comments?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, I want to address my remarks to what the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) has just said and then I shall ask him a question. I have known the Hon. Member for a long time. I know he is a very knowledgeable person in his understanding of the political process. I am disappointed, however, that in his analysis of the history of this development, which is a very positive development for the Province of Manitoba and which is a development very indicative of this Government's trend toward its commitment to consulting with the provinces, the Hon. Member forgot-and I can only assume he forgot deliberately or perhaps for politically partisan reasons-that the key factor in this process was the presence in the Cabinet of four Members from the Province of Manitoba. They are four very significant Members, who I suggest are much more significant in the carrying of the message in the decision-making process than those whom the Hon. Member has identified. In the art of politics there is a public role and a private role. It strikes as being extremely fortunate that this problem arose at a time when the Province of Manitoba was so well represented in the Cabinet of Canada, which was not the situation in the previous Government. I am sure the Hon. Member will join me in being thankful that we were well represented on this particular and very important occasion.

April 18, 1985
Supplementary Fiscal Equalization Payments
Let me ask the Hon. Member whether he agrees that Manitobans are delighted that they are receiving a total of $115 million as a result of this legislation which is before the House, and that the Province of Manitoba is coming out of this in a better cash position in terms of total dollars awarded than any other single province. Does he not agree as a fellow Manitoban that this is a very positive step forward?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I said earlier, and I do not know why the Hon. Member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Clark) bothered to ask, that 1 thought it was a positive step. I simply said what else I thought might have been done and added certain qualifications. I assume that Manitobans are delighted that this happened rather than nothing. It is a step on the part of the Government that we welcome.
With respect to other things the Minister had to say about the great influence that the four Manitoba members of the Cabinet have, I will be a lot more impressed about the influence that they wield in that Cabinet when I see the VIA Rail maintenance and repair shop being restored to Winnipeg. I will be a lot more impressed when I see the box car rehabilitation program, which is supposed to be taking place at the Transcona shop, going ahead, a program that was put off by this Government. I will be a lot more impressed when 1 see the program for the development of a prototype grain hopper car at Transcona going ahead, and when the manufacturing of that prototype takes place in western Canada, particularly at Transcona. Then I will know that a lot of the rhetoric about western Canada being respresented in the Cabinet has actually some substance to it. That will be the real test, Mr. Speaker, to see if some of those things go ahead and to see whether the Progressive Conservatives were serious over the last 15 years about complaining on and on about how western Canada was getting a raw deal from the Liberals.
I have a hunch, although I hope I am wrong, that the same people are calling the shots and that western Canada is not going to get the kind of treatment from the new Government that many people hoped it would get when they voted Progressive Conservative. One of the first tests, as far as 1 am concerned, will have to do with transportation policy and with whether or not those programs scheduled for the CN shops at Transcona go ahead.


Mr. Ravis:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) a question. It concerns having Members of Parliament from Manitoba in the Cabinet.
Does the Hon. Member think that having four Members from one's province in the Cabinet is more influential or less influential than having people who sit in third Party Opposition who might be able to influence some of the decisions in Winnipeg that the Hon. Member just talked about? Does he think those things would ever happen in the City of Winnipeg as a result of Members sitting in third Party Opposition?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the question put to me, this reminds me of the kind of question I got from my
Conservative opponents in the last three elections. In the first two elections it turned out to be a very hypothetical question because the Conservatives did not form a Government, although in 1979 they formed a Government of a sort. In 1980 the Conservatives did not form a Government. This question now I suppose is, at least, in theory relevant. The fact is that all Members of Parliament, all political scientists, everyone who has given any attention to the political process whatsoever, knows full well-and you can find it in book after book and in analysis after analysis-of the contribution that opposition Members have made over the years in getting certain things done. One of the things to be remembered, and the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ravis) is going to find very irritating after a while-he likes it here right now-is the silence that will be imposed on the Member as a government back-bencher. The Government will try to do things to his riding and he will not be able to say anything about it. The Hon. Member will sit there and suffer in silence. One of the things we do not have to do in opposition is to sit and suffer in silence. We can speak on behalf of our constituents. Often by doing so, we can get a lot more done for them than can government back-benchers who simply stand up when instructed to and vote as they are told by their Government House Leader. The Hon. Member should watch for it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If there are no other questions, we will resume debate. The Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet).


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take part in the debate on Bill C-39 introduced by the Conservative Government and I wish to express my objections to this Bill. This morning, my hon. friend from Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) referred to the Bill as being inequitable for Quebec, unfair to Manitoba and inadequate for Nova Scotia. In fact, the Bill does the exact opposite of what the Conservatives promised they would do if they formed the Government. It may look good to table a Bill that will provide lump sum payments for the six least advantaged and least fortunate provinces in Canada. However, although on the face of it the Bili seems generous because it gives certain sums of money to the provinces, there is unfortunately no mention of the sums of money the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) should have given the provinces and is not giving them.
A while ago, I heard two Conservative Members who were asking questions to show the people of Manitoba that it was thanks to the presence of four Ministers from Manitoba in the present Conservative Cabinet that Manitoba was getting a certain amount of money. However, Manitoba will be getting less than the Government of Manitoba hoped to obtain. Even with four Conservative Ministers, the Province of Manitoba will be getting far less than it should.
April 18, 1985

Mr. Speaker, I would like to concentrate today on analyzing Quebec's situation, because 1 think the Province of Quebec stands to benefit least in terms of equalization payments under this Bill. I want to focus particularly on Quebec, because 1 am sure that our new Conservative Members from the Province of Quebec are once again going to remain silent on this matter.


Mr. Della  Noce@: Do not worry, you will hear from us!


André Ouellet: I hear the Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) making noises. I think he would be better off keeping quiet in the House, especially since his Party has just given $2.4 billion to the multinationals which are going to raise the price of gas, after the Hon. Member promised voters that he would make the price of gas go down. It never has been as high as since the Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) was elected, and the Hon. Member has not said one word in this House against this increase in the price of oil or against the $2.4 billion handout to the multinationals while his own Province of Quebec is being treated high-handedly by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and is not getting any support or assistance.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for us in the Liberal Party to oppose this Bill because it is totally unjust and unfair to Quebec.
During the electoral campaign, the Conservatives in Quebec were talking about promoting better understanding with the provinces and the provincial governments, especially the Government of Quebec. Everything was going to change; everything would be perfect with the Conservatives in power in Ottawa; they would work hand in hand with the Parti Quebe-cois! In this regard, I would like to quote the comments of the Quebec Finance Minister, who is most eloquent about this Bill, much more than the Conservative Members from Quebec, who by the way have remained rather silent. This is what the Quebec Minister said:
"The Federal Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) announced yesterday the solution he has come up with to meet the requests of Quebec and certain other Provinces. All the Provinces receiving equalization payments will share $285 million over the next two fiscal years. Of this amount, $175 million will, strangely enough, be added to the $445 million already granted, for a total payment of $660 million to the Atlantic Provinces and Manitoba. But at the same time, the $750 million loss for Quebec under the new formula will be compensated to some extent by a payment of $110 million in 1985-86, leaving Quebec with a net loss of $640 million."
And the Minister of Finance added; "I must admit that I am very disappointed with this decision from the Conservative Government in Ottawa. During recent negotiations with the Federal Government, we discussed the difficult financial and budgetary situation inherited from the Trudeau administration and agreed to reduce our claims to a total amount of $450 million, or $300 million in 1985-86 and $150 million in
Supplementary Fiscal Equalization Payments
1986-87. However, the arbitrary and political settlement announced yesterday by the Federal Minister of Finance is far from satisfactory and is even impossible to understand."
Mr. Speaker, these are the comments of the Quebec Finance Minister, who clearly states that this Bill is unacceptable. What makes it even more unacceptable is the fact that the decision of the federal Minister of Finance is of a political and partisan nature, because when one considers the requests made by the Provinces, one realizes that, of the six Provinces who receive equalization payments, the two most seriously affected by the decision of the Conservative Minister of Finance are, by a strange coincidence, the two Provinces which do not have Conservative Governments. Indeed, the two Provinces most seriously affected are Quebec, where the Parti Quebecois, not the Conservative Party, is in power, and Manitoba, which has an NDP, not a Conservative Government. While Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Newfoundland will have a supplementary bonus under this Bill and are being favoured because they are on friendly terms with the other Conservative Governments, petty politics are being played at the expense of the people of Quebec and Manitoba because they do not have Conservative Governments at this time.
I find this utterly unacceptable, because the Minister of Finance has the choice to decide how he is going to spend the taxpayers' money. Ever since my little fight with him, the Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) has kept quiet.


Mr. Della  Noce@: Your turn will come, Papineau.


André Ouellet: But it is a fact that the Minister of Finance has arbitrarily decided to kowtow to the oil multinationals and give them some $2.4 billion.


Mr. Della  Noce@: Where were you when they murdered the petrochemical industry in Quebec?


André Ouellet: And who are suffering in the meantime? The provinces which are the poorest, the least affluent, especially Quebec, which is being played a dirty trick by the new Conservative government.
This morning, Mr. Speaker, I listened to the fine remarks made by the Parliamentary Secretary; he explained to the House the historic background to this equalization program, where the Minister of Finance to some extent plays the part of a modern Robin Hood, stealing from the richest provinces to give to the poorest, taking money from the richest taxpayers to distribute it among the poorest. That is what is called the equalization system, the root of true federalism, which allows the Parliament of Canada to share equitably among the least affluent provinces the taxpayers' money, making sure that Canadians from all provinces receive adequate health care and education services. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Finance had the opportunity this year to review this formula. We have had for three years a transitional payment system which favoured the poorest provinces and especially Quebec, a

April 18, 1985
Spousal Allowance
province which had not lost a cent under the formula which the Liberal government had adopted in 1982. That government had agreed to review, if necessary, the 1982 agreement. In 1982, nobody could be expected to foretell what the inflation rate would be now, what would be the current growth rate, what would be the extent of the recession in Canada and the economic problems facing a number of provinces. Well, if we had today a Liberal Minister of Finance, if the Leader of the Opposition was now Prime Minister of Canada, with the support on economic issues of my colleague the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau), I am sure, as I said, that a Canadian government under a Liberal Prime Minister would be more generous, equitable and favourable to Quebec than the present Conservative government.
I say, therefore, that members of the Progressive Conservative Party representing Quebec must, as a duty, follow the recommendations of the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides and oppose these agreements, in order to extend the transitional period for a couple of years and maintain the interim payments. That is a proposition our Quebec colleagues must consider. I urge them to show some courage, to stand for Quebec's interests and oppose this bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please! It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS

["The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired."]
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the House to proceed to Item No. 92?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before presenting to the House the motion of the Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Male-part), the Chair would like to comment briefly on the subject of the motion. Recently, the House adopted the second reading stage of Bill C-26, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, which is currently being examined by the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. Section 5 of Bill C-26 concerns, in fact, the matter that the Hon. Member, through his motion, is urging the Government to reconsider. One could maintain that the motion is out of order because it is anticipatory. Nevertheless, I am willing to put the motion before the House, but I may remind all Hon. Members that they must speak only to the subject of the motion and refrain from
speaking to Bill C-26, its provisions or any other matter arising from the Committee's proceedings on Bill C-26.



Jean-Claude Malépart: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should reconsider its intention to limit the eligibility of spouse allowance to needy widows and widowers between the ages of 60 and 64 and that it should extend the program to all persons of this age group living alone and having the same means, without taking their marital status into account.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I think this motion is very important, and I am convinced that all Members of this House will wish to rise above political considerations in discussing a motion that invites the Government to examine the feasibility of extending the spouse's allowance to all needy persons, living alone, between the ages of 60 and 64. Since the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) is in the House, I am sure that he would rather not be called the Minister of social injustice in future and will therefore recommend that all Members vote in favour of the motion and make the necessary amendments in committee.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain. We have a situation where three people, three women, all the same age, namely 60, all living on the same income, which is very low in fact, they are living on welfare payments of $430 per month. These three people are identical as far as economics is concerned. The only thing that differentiates them is that the first person is a widow and has been for five years. The second has been separated for five years and the third is single. Unfortunately, if we use marital status as a criterion for eligibility, the second woman who has been separated for five years and the third woman who is single will not be eligible for this very important program. I do not think the Government has any excuse for opposing this amendment or rather, this motion. When it comes to funding, the Government keeps bringing up the deficit. I raised the issue before the Christmas holidays, but as soon as the House resumed sitting, the multinational oil companies had no trouble getting $2.5 billion. The Government says it was to create jobs, but the multinationals are already making a profit.
In the case of the needy elderly, it would mean $250 million extra that would go into the economy. This particular group would also create jobs, because the additional $100 would be used by them to purchase essential goods such as food and housing and such purchases would automatically create jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I do not buy that and I suggest that the Government is using the deficit as a smokescreen. Think of all the money wasted for defence simply to buy uniforms for the
April 18, 1985

military, they are now talking about sending more troops to Germany, and then the star war, it is altogether shameful that they cannot find $250 million to redress this injustice and make life easier for Canadian men and women.
Mr. Speaker, strong support has been expressed throughout Canada for the motion urging the Prime Minister to eliminate such discrimination-47 groups from every part of the country are behind us all the way. I received petitions from 180 ridings-Conservative ridings included-signed by people who urgently ask the Prime Minister of Canada to amend that legislation.
I should like to point out to the people who are listening, not only to Hon. Members, that they ought not to forget the procedure. I have no intention to speak the full twenty minutes allotted to me. Most people here know what the problem is, and they also know the solution. But still I want to caution our listeners-Government Members on the Conservative side will rise to speak, they will make nice speeches to say that they agree, but to our listeners I say this: Keep one thing in mind, they will rise to speak until six o'clock because they want to kill this amendment, deprive 80,000 Canadians of an opportunity to see an end to such discrimination.
Yesterday was a memorable occasion, guests were drinking champagne, but 80,000 senior citizens could not join in the celebration because the Progressive Conservative Government simply will not honour its commitments.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks because I am convinced that all Hon. Members, regardless of political affiliation, are aware of this problem, this injustice which affects women mostly in each an every riding, and I am convinced that a Member of each Party will speak and that the motion will be passed unanimously.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion put forth by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart). I do so as the sole speaker on behalf of my caucus. We too want to see what the response will be of government Members who, I am sure, have heard time and again from people in their own constituencies that there is a need for equality in this regard. I am sure they have heard that there is a need for the kind of excitement there was yesterday when we celebrated getting that much closer to equality in this country to make sure that all of those older adults aged 60 to 65 receive the same level of support from the Canadian taxpayers.
We are not talking about the Government's money, about the Liberal Party's money or about the New Democratic Party's money. We are talking about the money the people of Canada pay through their taxation system. I would say through you, Mr. Speaker, to the members of the Conservative caucus that what I have heard is that the people want their money to be used to support those people who are aged 60 to 65. In particular, they see a real injustice in the fact that women who, for whatever reason, chose to remain single throughout their adult lives are being discriminated against.
Spousal Allowance
They have the same needs-food, shelter and clothing-as women who choose to marry and, for whatever reason, whether through the death of a loved one or separation, find themselves alone. The same needs are there, the same costs are there. We as a society have a responsibility to provide the kind of protection to which the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte Marie (Mr. Malepart) referred.
O)
Let us take a look at some of the costs. This week, Statistics Canada along with the National Council on Welfare issued a report indicating the poverty levels in the country. In our large cities it costs a single person $10,238 per year just to get by, just for the basics; in our medium-sized communities, one of which I represent, with populations of 100,000 to just under
500,000,	it costs $9,763; in communities of 30,000 to 100,000, $9,121 per year; in communities of less than 30,000, $8,432 per year; and in our rural communities, where I think single women are even in more difficult situations, it costs $7,571 per year to survive. Surely $100 per month or $1,200 per year added to the existing incomes of these people makes a lot of sense. It is only humane. However, I find it amazing that in 1985, on the day after the equality provisions of the Charter were proclaimed, we are still fighting for this kind of justice.
I had the opportunity to have lunch today with three very outstanding Canadians who throughout their lives fought for justice for people and fought for women in particular to ensure that they had the same options, abilities and rights of survival. My luncheon companions were three former Members of the House of Commons-Grace Maclnnis, Stanley Knowles and Tommy Douglas, fine Canadians who worked hard on behalf of Canadians across the land, not just for decades because when their years of service are added together they would probably total more than those of all of us who are present in the House this afternoon. Their commitment was a very substantial one.
In supporting this resolution we should keep those people in mind and make sure that we go forth and improve the lot of single women. I compliment the Hon. Member for bringing forth his resolution and conducting his campaign. However, on a somewhat negative note, I wish that in his previous incarnation as a member of the Liberal Government he and his colleagues had moved a little more quickly to implement the kinds of things for which we are trying to fight today.
I encourage Members opposite and those on the Conservative benches in either wing not to talk out this Bill. They should have one speaker rise and say, "Yes, we agree the time is now". Then let us get on with it.
[ Translation]


Mr. Charles-Eugene Marin (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in this discussion and in particular to reply to the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) to the effect that the provision concerning the eligibility of the spouses allowance is too restrictive.

April 18, 1985
Spousal Allowance
Ideally, the program should indeed go a step further, and I am quite willing to admit that the allowance will not be available to everyone. However, Mr. Speaker, the Government has to face the economic and social realities. One of those economic facts is the unprecedented deficit that the Government budget has been plagued with. This Government must therefore proceed with caution and try to alleviate that burden by implementing sound economic policies as well as promoting a responsible social and financial development.
It would of course, be irresponsible to promise funds when we are short of money. It would also be irresponsible for the Government not to make a commitment to share the funds available. So, Mr. Speaker, we took the only approach that was both responsible and cautious to that reform: we made a commitment to use the scarce resources available to help those people in our society who are most in need of help and protection. In other words, the spouse's allowance be extended to all needy widows and widowers between 50 and 64, regardless of the spouse's age at the time of death. Finally, this amendment will allow us to include in the spouse's allowance program those Canadians who have been left out since of the legislation was first implemented. And in my opinion, this proposal and the related increase are no different from most proposals put before the House of Commons.
In fact, a large part of the social legislation introduced in the House aims at improving social benefits gradually. Each amendment adds a little to the security net by extending the eligibility, increasing the allowances and adjusting the programs according to changing social realities.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the spouse's allowance program, like the old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement, has developed gradually thanks to several improvements made to the original provisions. It is a well known fact, known even to the Members of this House. In fact, by the mere implementation of the guaranteed income supplement in 1967, the government of the day recognized that the basic old age security pension in itself did not provide an adequate income to people without any other source of income, more particularly if the additional income that future pensioners might expect under the newly implemented Canada Pension Plan were taken into account. The supplement subject to a means test was thus introduced to help the neediest pensioners.
However, the shortcomings of this supplement soon became apparent. In 1971, to take into account the various situations and needs of pensioners, both single and married, different and more adequate rates were introduced for the guaranteed income supplement.
As the economic situation evolved, it became obvious that the original provision limiting the indexation to 2 per cent inadequate to the extent that the purchasing power of the aged was being increasingly eroded. Therefore, in 1972 and 1973, more realistic provisions came into effect for quarterly increases in the allowances in line with the rise in the consumer price index. The progress of the supplement did not stop there. The monthly supplement paid to a couple of pensioners was increased by $20 in 1979 and by $35 in 1980.
We all know, Mr. Speaker, that this House and its Members have sometimes been accused of going around in circles. I must admit that there is a certain truth to the allegation. In 1984, we took measures to correct once again an injustice in the level of allowances paid to couples with only one pensioner as opposed to couples with both spouses being pensioners. In fact, in the first case, an increase of $50 was granted. Finally, new Canadians will be entitled to a basic minimum income equal to the allowance paid to Canadians who have been in the country for a long time.
I mention these amendments merely to prove without the shadow of a doubt that this Government has absolutely nothing to brag about because it proposed an approach based on progressive increases to enhance social programs. Indeed, the spouse allowance which we are discussing today was introduced to compensate for the shortcomings of the Old Age Security Program and the Guaranteed Income Supplement, for if the benefits paid under these programs were enough for couples where both spouses were pensioners or for single pensioners, they were simply inadequate in providing decent assistance to couples where only one of the spouses was a pensioner.
The allowance was therefore introduced in 1975, subject to a means test, to assist needy spouses aged 60 to 64 of old age security pensioners. It is a fact that thousands of needy spouses have been helped.
Unfortunately, the allowance was cancelled when the pensioner died. Thus, the spouse would lose not only the income of the pensioner, but also his or her own allowance, at a time when he or she actually most needed this assistance, when he or she was the most unable to cope with the situation.
Once more, Mr. Speaker, the safety net was made a little wider. In 1979, when our Party came to power, provisions were made to extend the allowance after the death of the pensioner until the surviving spouse reached age 65 or remarried.
In 1979, in 1980 and 1984, the spouse allowance program was again enhanced, more specifically by bringing in the same improvements as in the case of the Guaranteed Income Supplement, so that the allowance recipients would be treated equitably.
I think that I have established clearly that our proposal to extend spouse allowance eligibility to needy widows and widowers aged 60 to 64 is another step in the evolution of the program. Of course, we would prefer being able to help a greater number of needy Canadians, but the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) is only too well aware that what is preventing us from doing so is the extremely
April 18, 1985

disastrous financial situation in which we found ourselves on September 5.
The Hon. Member says that we are curbing the allowance granted to this group of needy Canadians, while we are actually extending eligibility to this group. While he has stated that we are excluding those who will not be entitled to the allowance, 1 would say that we are including those who will become eligible. Finally, while he says that we are penalizing those who will not be eligible, I say that we are offering long-awaited assistance to needy widows and widowers aged 60 to 64.
Mr. Speaker, if we analyze the comments made by the Hon. Member, we could summarize them as follows: If you cannot do everything, do not do anything. This approach may be defended in theory, but in actual practice, it results in inactivity and failure to help. For my part, I believe that we should be proud of doing our best at this time when we have the opportunity to do so.
In closing, I would like to quote these words from Cicero: "Let us be guided by reason rather than by public opinion."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?
The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Hudon).


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I do not doubt for one moment that the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) is sincere in introducing this motion, and I am in a position to know how relentlessly he has pursued the matter. However, before going any further, I would like to make one thing very clear. The government is not limiting the eligibility to the spouses allowance, on the contrary, despite our own very serious financial position at this time we are proposing for the first time ever to extend to all low-income widows and widowers between the ages of 60 and 64 the protection offered by this important social program.
The spouses allowance, Mr. Speaker, is the monthly amount that is now paid to low-income spouses between the ages of 60 and 64 of old-age security pensioners, or to widows or widowers of old-age pensioners who were entitled to it at the time the pensioners died.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, there are two different categories of needy people between the ages of 60 and 64 who get a guaranteed minimum income under the Spouse's Allowance Program. First, the spouses of guaranteed income supplement recipients, and second, the widows and widowers over 60 who were eligible to the allowance when the pensioned spouse died.
It is obvious that the Spouse's Allowance Program as it exists today leaves something to be desired. People in the same age group as the allowance recipients, for whom the cost of living is just as high, are still not entitled to an allowance. Are we to believe that the then government made a mistake when it
Spousal Allowance
established the program in 1975? Did the succeeding governments err in broadening the initial conditions of eligibility to the program? Unlike some people, I would be prepared to undertake a task although I might not be certain to see it through. Fortunately, many of the architects of the Canadian social security system did not wait for such certainty before they acted.
Mr. Speaker, I have read over with care the debates that took place some years ago and to which my hon. colleague from Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) participated, concerning the necessary changes to be made to the Widows' allowances and the Old Age Security Pensions, and with that knowledge, I realize that the criticisms were always the same. When it comes to improving a program, it is advisable to go all the way. I believe this is an important step. On the other hand, considering the determination of my hon. colleague in defending this proposition and this motion, I found it amusing to see the kind of accusations brought against Members of the Opposition who were also asking for changes. They were told that if they wanted some changes it was because they had an ulterior motive, being recipients of the Old Age Security Pension.


An Hon. Member:: What about the other poor.


Jean-Guy Hudon: All right. You are already discriminating between the rich and the poor. Your approach is discriminatory. We could discuss at length the subject of discrimination, but I must confess, my dear colleague that, that kind of rhetoric has little effect regarding the intentions the Government now has. We have a perfect example of this gradual approach in the way the Old Age Security Program has improved to the point that a basic pension is now paid to every Canadian having reached the age of 65, provided they meet certain residential requirements.
Mr. Speaker, there are significant differences between the Old Age Security Program as we know it now and the first pension plan introduced by the Government which in 1927 became our first Old Age Security Act. Of course I was not there.


Jean-Claude Malépart: I am not sure of that.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Oh! You are not! According to this legislation, only certain people were entitled to a pension, and they were subjected to a means test. Every real property or personal belongings were assigned a value and accounted for as revenue. Once all these conditions were met, the claimant was then declared eligible. The program, however, was very peculiar. At the death of a pensioner the provincial governments were allowed to reclaim from his estate all the moneys paid to him in the form of Old Age Security Pension, plus the interest. Of course the first pension program was far from being perfect. Actually, in 1945, only 37 per cent of the people 70 years old and above were receiving the Old Age Security Pension.
3888

April 18, 1985
Spousal Allowance
However it is important to realize that this program was an improvement for 37 per cent of those people. Obviously, it would have been better if the rest of them, or 63 per cent had not been excluded, but the previous government had recognized the importance of helping as many people as it could help and this is precisely what it had done.
Fortunately, the Old Age Security Act was implemented in 1952 as a result of which a universal pension was paid to people 70 years old and over provided they met residency requirements. It was a significant improvement. The Old Age Security Program was going to be improved many times over the years: for instance, as my hon. colleague has just mentioned, the Guaranteed Income Supplement, an allowance based on a means test, was introduced in 1967 and the Spouse's Allowance, in 1975.
Mr. Speaker, I realize that I spent more than a few minutes on the history of Old Age Security. In fact, the development of the program is similar to that of the Spouse's Allowance. A program that, initially, was far from being perfect was extended and made more generous over the years, as succeeding governments considered they could spend additional resources on it.
What we must ask ourselves is this: Should we stop trying to improve the Old Age Security Program until we can afford to make it perfect? Must the Government refrain from helping those it can help on the pretence that it cannot for the time being improve the lot of other needy persons? Certainly not! We must continue to seek steady financial and social improvements whenever and however we can. And in this respect, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my hon. colleague that the pension reform as proposed by the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) is in line with the commitments we made during the last election. We are indeed too often blamed for not keeping our word.
And I also remember how vigorously at times that promise has been said to be ridiculous, that it did not make sense and yet, today there are people who say that not only does it make sense but that it should be extended. Like I said, in taking this step now we are moving in accordance with our promises and our means.
Another point was also important in terms of universality: Pensionable age could be lowered from 65-my hon. colleague knows that, it was also part of their political commitment- from 65 to 64 years of age. That is considered universal. That is a horizontal category. I know that possibility was scoffed at recently but we had to choose either a horizontal group or a vertical one among the neediest.


Jean-Claude Malépart: You stopped half way.


Jean-Guy Hudon: I beg your pardon?


Jean-Claude Malépart: You only went halfway.


Jean-Guy Hudon: So, extending the Spouse's Allowance Program to all low-income people between 60 and 64, without taking into account their marital status, would cost an estimated $1.5 billion in the first year. I say again that would cost $1.5 billion for the first year.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, that is not true.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Had you spoken longer, you could have disproved that figure.


Mr. Rossi:: That gives you no right to use inaccurate figures.


Jean-Guy Hudon: In view of the economic situation, we cannot afford new expenses of that magnitude. The government was in a position to . . . Therefore, Mr. Speaker, there were the two following options. First, not to change the Spouse's Allowance Program, under which only spouses and widowers or widows of recipients of the Guaranteed Income Supplement were eligible. This was the first option.
Or, following the recommendation made in 1983 by the Parliamentary Task Force on Pension Reform, which had an all-party representation, we could extend the Spouse's Allowance Program to all low-income widows and widowers between 60 and 64 years of age, thus recognizing that they form a priority group which needs more assistance.
Nevertheless, this resolution was made by the parliamentary task force in 1983 and we followed up in 1985 to an important part thereof. In doing that, we also recognized the efforts and work done by the members of the parliamentary task force.
Fortunately, we know that the only way to reach one's goal is sometimes to go step by step. This is why the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), on January 25, has tabled Bill C-26, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act. We do not claim that this Bill is perfect. It is not! Nevertheless, we should not excuse ourselves for providing as much help as we can to those who most need it.
As of September 1985-


Jean-Claude Malépart: The uniforms would have been better used on older people?


Jean-Guy Hudon: Anyway, I will say to my hon. colleague that people in the Armed Forces need a pair of pants, and whatever colour we may have chosen, we still bought them because you would have waged a real war in the House if they had walked about bare bottomed, I guess.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Guy Hudon: I don't know whether these terms are unparliamentary, Mr. Speaker?


An Hon. Member:: 
Jean-Guy Hudon: They are parliamentary. Therefore, as of September 1985, almost 85,000 widows and widowers, whom I, unfortunately cannot name, will receive, should Bill C-26 pass, a minimum income which will help them face standard costs of living. This guaranteed income will be equal to what is received by the 6,300 beneficiaries of spouse's allowance.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Do you know why a 60 year old person does not receive the same amount as a 65 year old?


An Hon. Member:: Are we in question period?


Claudy Mailly: You already spoke!


Jean-Guy Hudon: The Government recognizes that many people between the age of 60 and 64, who are single, separated, divorced or married will continue to be deprived of spouse's allowance. We also acknowledge that if our resources where not so limited, we could be talking about very different issues. If the Government had not inherited such a deficit, if we had a balanced budget, and if our economy was going as well as we could expect, as well as Canadians would like, we might be able to introduce the kind of social benefits the Hon. Member is talking about, and even go beyond our electoral promises.
In the meantime, he is free to criticize the Minister of Health and Welfare and the Government who make genuine and responsible efforts to help the needy. However, I can guarantee him that his criticism will not prevent the Government from doing whatever is possible, when it is feasible.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the financial realities we face and our sense of responsibilities totally prevent us from improving further the spouse's allowance program. It is sad, but we should not, nevertheless, underestimate the importance of this benefit, which will start being paid to 85,000 more widows and widowers in September.
We can now see, Mr. Speaker, how legislation develops, how it changes, year after year. Parliamentarians can, when the time and the situation allow it, make the necessary changes, horizontally or vertically, but I repeat, the Government priority at the present time was to help the widows and widowers in their early sixties because, according to a parliamentary group, they were the most in need.


Moe Mantha: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the motion presented by the Liberal Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) concerning Bill C-26. The purpose of this Bill is to extend the Spouse's Allowance Program to all widows and widowers between the ages of 60 and 64, regardless of the age of their spouse at the time of death.
Spousal Allowance
This, Mr. Speaker, is a very significant step in the battle against poverty since this age group is particularly affected. Women in this age group are rarely poor as a result of misfortune or other foreseeable events. For the majority, their poverty is the consequence of the role society has assigned to them, their difficulty in gaining access to the job market, the conditions they have had to work under if they did work, and the poor protection they have had under the Canadian pension system.
Society has assigned the responsibility for rearing children and doing unpaid domestic work to women and the responsibility for meeting families' economic needs to men. People of my generation will remember the social disapproval there was in the past of any married woman, but particularly those with children, who wanted to get a paid job. Most working wives then were forced on to the labour market by the difficulty of their family's economic situation. Since the role society has reserved for women went hand in hand with financial dependency, it is not surprising that they are without resources when their husbands die.
The low level of participation in the labour market by older women also contributes to their poverty. According to Statistics Canada figures, only 26.2 per cent of women between the ages of 60 and 64 were in the workforce in 1984. Women of all ages made up 53.5 per cent of the workforce at that time.
This low figure may be explained by the many obstacles older women face when they try to get into, or go back into, the workforce after spending a large portion of their lives at home. First, there is the problem of training. What they have learned is often either obsolete or inadequate for the increasingly specialized needs of today. There are training and refresher courses available to prepare them for entry into the job market, but those cannot keep up with the demand. Older women must also face certain prejudices when it comes to candidate selection. A number of employers prefer to hire younger people over those who will be taking retirement in a few years. It is a well known fact that employability decreases as a person gets older.
Access to paid employment does not necessarily mean that women will be protected against poverty. Some who do work do so under the most unenviable conditions. They are still concentrated in a limited number of often poorly paid jobs with the least advantageous working conditions.
The protection offered to surviving spouses under the Canadian pension system is another cause of the difficult economic situation a large number of widows aged 60 to 64 find themselves in. I would remind you that in the Throne Speech the Government announced its intent to engage in discussions with the provinces on a total review of the Canadian pension system. Survivor benefits will be among the points discussed.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, those aged 60 to 64 deserve a better fate than the one in store for them at the present time. It is the duty of the Government to come to their assistance, regardless of the current economic situation. We are assuming that responsibility by proposing an extention of the Spouse's

April 18, 1985
Spousal Allowance
Allowance Program to all widows and widowers between the ages of 60 and 64. Starting this coming September, some 85,000 people, 72,000 of them women, will be able to benefit from this measure. These 85,000 represent some 61 per cent of the total population of widows and widowers aged 60 to 64.
Essentially what we are offering to those people is the possibility of sufficient income to meet their basic needs. The Spouse's Allowance Program will guarantee them the same level of income as is currently provided to the surviving spouse of the pensioner who was in receipt of Old Age Security benefits before his death. At the moment, the maximum benefit is $536.26 per month. This figure will, however, be raised slightly in September since benefits are indexed every three months to the cost of living.
The Government is well aware that certain groups of the needy near-elderly will still be excluded from the Spouse's Allowance Program, but unfortunately we cannot go any further at this time given the current economic situation.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I express my sincere wish that the evolution of women's roles within society, the improvement of their working conditions, and the review of the Canadian pension system will mean that coming generations of women will be better off.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on that very important issue and I should like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) for his great kindness which leads him to consider that problem of our senior citizens. I should also like to say to the Hon. Member that I would be very happy if it was announced today that not only we would pay to our seniors in distress the amount now allotted to the surviving spouse but we would also grant them a pension which would bring them over the poverty level. As you know, Mr. Speaker, even with the pension now paid to senior citizens, a too great number-60 per cent of them being women-live in poverty. Those people who worked hard and paid taxes throughout their life, who have raised families, who have made Canada the great country it is today, those older citizens live in truly inhuman conditions.
Now I would merely like to indicate to the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie that the allowance to which he referred comes under a legislation aimed at spouses and providing them a spouses allowance. It is unfortunately impossible to use an allowance provided under a legislation meant for a certain group in our community, that is spouses in distress due to the death of the partner looking after his or her needs or merely contributing to the family income... It would be somewhat as if aged couples in distress would receive family allowances after their children have reached adulthood. What we need-


Jean-Claude Malépart: What about the separated woman?


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue without being interrupted. I did not interrupt the Hon. Member when he was speaking.


Carlo Rossi: Is it an order?


Claudy Mailly: No, it is merely the wish of a member who has the same rights as you have. The Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) is asking whether it is an order, Mr. Speaker, 1 merely ask the members opposite to let me enjoy the same rights as they have.
So, I was saying that it was necessary to find, as my colleague from the Conservative Party who spoke just before me has said, a way to rehabilitate these women in society and a small number of men as well, because more and more, we find couples where the man is the surviving spouse, and since his wife contributed a lot to the household revenue, once he reaches a certain age, he finds himself in the same situation as many women. So, I would like, as my colleague has said, this whole question of the quality of life for all senior Canadians be reviewed. Tonight, at six o'clock, I must leave to attend a dinner of the Gerontology Institute, in Hull, where the Parliamentary Secretary of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mrs. Bertrand) is scheduled to speak on this very subject of the quality of life of senior Canadians. She will address, I am confident, other aspects, apart from ways to alleviate current problems. She will speak about the future of Canadians, of those who are now on the labour market or, even, of those who just entered the labour market because it will take at least two or three decades before the situation described by my conservative colleague can change. When it does change, a woman will not have to totally depend on a man to survive, a woman will be paid the same as a man and, when she will reach a certain age and have to retire or cannot work anymore, she will be able to enjoy a fair revenue, a revenue above the poverty level and maybe even better if we have the chance to ensure the economic renewal which will allow us to improve the living conditions of all Canadians including our elderly.
Then, for example, there is the situation of people who are forced to retire. Many of our elderly live in poverty because, during their working life, they received a pay cheque which was maybe small, but was nevertheless large enough for their needs. They reach the age of 65 without any pension, because it is only recently that people have private pensions or they simply live on only the Government pension which, naturally, is not enough to give Canadians the same quality of life they enjoyed when they were on the labour market. Thus, forced retirement creates economic problems.
On the other hand, there is also the case, naturally, of people who would like to retire at 50 or 55. There is always a debate between these two groups of Canadians, the ones who would like to continue to work and receive the same revenue and the ones who think that once one has reached a certain age
April 18, 1985

and worked very hard for 30 or 40 years, maybe as a labourer, one should be able to retire. Therefore, those people should enjoy full retirement benefits and not get, as it is the case now, one third or one half of their pension if they retire before the compulsory limit of 65 years of age.
Retirement and sufficient income for people who would choose early retirement are all matters that need to be examined.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I commend the Hon. Member for his deep generosity, but I would like to hear from him a real commitment to participating in any review on compulsory retirement for Canadians. I suggest that he considers the means to provide sufficient income for senior citizens so that they become more financially independent than they are now. In the past, 35 workers supported one individual unable to work. Today, that equation is three workers for each individual who is either too young, too old, handicapped or too ill to work. And according to statistics, that proportion could fall to one worker having to support one other person unable to work. Perspectives in that area are such that one must obviously encourage and help Canadians to secure now income for their old days so they could lead an independent life without being a burden for the government.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to speak on that subject.


Raymond Garneau: As my colleague from Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) stressed at the outset of his remarks, Mr. Speaker, we did not plan to put up more speakers on this motion simply to see what approach the Progressive Conservative Government would take on such an important motion concerning 80,000 needy Canadian citizens who are either divorced or separated and who will be subject to discrimination with respect to the way the spouse's allowance is granted.
Mr. Speaker, having listened to the Hon. Member for Gaspe (Mr. Marin), the Hon. Member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Hudon), the Hon. Member for Nipissing (Mr. Mantha), and the Hon. Member who has just resumed her seat-


An Hon. Member:: The Member for Gatineau.


Raymond Garneau: The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly). It was a brilliant idea to introduce this motion, because we have just heard the most praiseworthy comments on policies adopted by the Liberals in the past fifteen years or so, particularly from the Hon. Member for Gaspe, the Hon. Member for Beauharnois and the Hon. Member for Nipissing. But if we analyze their speeches to praise the evolution of social measures which were implemented by the Liberal Party and by Liberal Governments, we come to the conclusion that the bottom line is just a question of money. We could come to an agreement if it is a question of money. What I am saying and what my colleague is saying is that we have to make a
Adjournment Debate
choice. We on this side do not understand, particularly the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie who has been interested in social issues for so many years and who, although not fully at ease in English, has received support from Halifax, Yellowknife, Saskatchewan and even from the Canadian Association of Gerontology where the Hon. Member for Gatineau will be having dinner this evening. He has received a lot of support. But all that is a question of choice.
I conclude my remarks because it is getting close to six o'clock. Notwithstanding the fact that the debt is huge, and we will get back to this issue later, the Progressive Conservative Government has decided to give away $2.4 billion to the multinationals, not only once but year in and year out. And now, what do we hear from the Hon. Member for Gaspe, the Hon. Member for Gatineau, the Hon. Member for Nipissing, the Hon. Member for Salaberry-de-Valleyfield? We have no money! Multinational oil companies will get $2.4 billion, and the government does not have the money to extend the spouses allowance to single or divorced people, as they did not have any money to improve equalization. They made a political choice. The hon. member for Gatineau who mumbles in her place should not tell us today that she has no money, that her government does not have any money, and that they blame us for the deficit when they give out $2.4 billion. If they have money to reduce taxes for multinational oil companies they should have the money for needy divorced or single people.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 45 deemed to have been moved.

Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I should have chosen answer to a question other than the one I chose this evening because I would have been able to reply and to show how disappointed I am with my colleagues who spoke earlier. Let us now come back to the subject of housing.


An Hon. Member:: Well, it is as bad!

April 18, 1985
Adjournment Debate


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, when Conservative Members start talking about social issues, they really do not know what they are talking about. They do not have a clue! In March I had a question for the Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight), who is responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Mr. Speaker, after listening to the answers he gave me then, I said quite honestly that he did not know anything about the issue and that he was not even interested. And he knew even less about Quebec.
I think all Members of this House understand the importance of housing cooperatives and subsidized housing. There are three forms of subsidized housing. There is public housing, called HLM in Quebec or low-rent housing, which is financed by the provincial governments through the municipalities. We have non-profit organizations that are involved in residential construction and administered by a board consisting of five, seven or nine members. We have co-operatives whose members are all involved in carrying out the project.
To set up housing co-operatives, the Government finances interest payments. Co-operatives also help renew the supply of accommodation in working class neighbourhoods like in Sainte-Marie, and in towns across the country, where there are older homes that have to be renovated or restored. Usually, there are housing co-operatives organized by the tenants themselves. To help these people on moderate and low incomes to achieve something they would never be able to do without this formula, and become, collectively, the owners of their homes, they were allowed to take part in the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, the RRAP.
A budget of about $5 million was allocated strictly to setting up non-profit housing co-operatives. This made it possible to reduce rental costs, to get decent housing and to help people on moderate and low incomes become homeowners.
Unfortunately, when I asked the question, the Minister wondered whether he was going to maintain this RRAP program and the $5 million it needs to upgrade housing through housing co-operatives.
The Minister was certainly faced with a very serious decision, but he is to blame for not having the guts to make his case with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) so he would not slack millions of dollars from the financing of social housing programs and the budget of the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, or RRAP. He kept silent in his chair and let the Minister of National Defence get all the money he wanted and left his own budgets truncated. However, the Parliamentary Secretary will be responding to my question later on, and I would like to tell him that I myself was parliamentary Secretary before September 4, and I trust that he will not just read the text prepared by his officials and will give us a satisfactory answer and tell us whether CMHC or the Minister have reached a decision and whether the financing of housing co-operatives under the RRAP program will be abolished or maintained. I would like him to tell us how many housing units will be cut off the programs this year. The figure is 5,000 units in the area of social housing. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to give us specific answers to these questions. I trust that he is aware of the impact of the decision made by the Minister and CMHC. If he cuts back the budget of the RRAP program for housing co-operatives, these will disappear all across the country because this will result in rent increases and people will no longer be able to form co-operatives or non-profit organizations to invest in existing housing.
Social housing programs that do not come under the responsibility of provincial or municipal governments will apply only to the building of new housing, and we all know how costly new housing is and this means that the rents will be too high for some people.
Mr. Speaker, I see that the time at my disposal is nearly over and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will prove to be much more efficient than his Minister and will provide me with the answer to two questions: in the first place, has the Conservative Government decided to withdraw altogether the $5 million allocated the RRAP for housing co-operatives? Secondly, by how much will the number of housing units be reduced? The Parliamentary Secretary is aware that, in previous years, 25,000 housing units were built in Canada. How many units has the Government decided to cut back?


Mr. Joe Price (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to respond to the matters raised in the House by the Hon. Member on March 14 of this year and the matters he has raised today. These matters concern the non-profit Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program and the co-operative housing program.
With respect to the co-operative housing program, CMHC has put in place a competitive process. The intent of this process is to review projects, whether they be submitted by co-ops or non-profit groups, in an equitable and fair manner. The procedure is based on objective selected criteria. The selection process has been designed to improve the degree to which federal assistance is directed to those most in need and to reduce the over-all costs through the selection of well targeted modest proposals on a competitive basis. This reflects the Minister's commitment to help people most in need of assistance and to ensure that available funds are used effectively.
At this stage in the selection process, more than 50 per cent or more than half the projects selected to proceed to the next selection stage or decision stage are indeed co-ops. The important consideration here is that co-ops are being treated in a fair manner. Co-ops are able to compete for subsidy units on an equal basis with other worthy groups. In this House the Minister has put the process in its proper prospective, reminding the Hon. Member that such project decisions are a func-
April 18, 1985

tion of CMHC's competitive process and not, I repeat, not a matter of ministerial preference.
With respect to the non-profit RRAP program, I am pleased to say that funding will be available in 1985 for those projects which are successful in the current competitive project selection process. Non-profit RRAP funds will be used in specified circumstances to ensure project viability. The emphasis will be on the need to overcome to the extent that it is possible project viability problems in those market areas where existing housing activity is essential to meet the identified housing needs of the country.
The Minister is indeed sensitive to the housing needs of the country and to any cut-backs that may be considered or put forward by various groups. The Minister is dedicated to providing a sound, reasonable housing policy directed to those most in need and he will continue to be so dedicated in the years ahead.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS-TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY CHEMICAL SPILL-GOVERNMENT'S KNOWLEDGE OF INCIDENTS. (B) REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up the question I put to the Government today as answered by the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier). I put my question to the appropriate Minister but I am not sure just which Minister is taking responsibility for the federal response to the PCB spill that occurred between Kenora and Ignace in northwestern Ontario. Transportation of dangerous goods legislation falls under the purview of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), but the Minister of the Environment released a news release yesterday reannouncing the coming into effect of the regulations under the transportation of dangerous goods legislation to which the Minister of Transport has referred the day before. We are not sure who is taking the responsibility for the federal response to this event.
I was just accused in committee by the Minister of Transport of not being patient and not waiting until all the facts were in. The fact of the matter is that we have to make decisions and evaluations on a day-to-day basis with respect to these kinds of events. 1 have been after the Government, not only with respect to the facts that we already know but with respect to what I consider to be its inadequate interest in finding out just what are the facts of the case.
What do we know? We know that the interprovincial transportation of dangerous goods is a federal responsibility, contrary to what the Minister of the Environment said the first day she was asked about this matter. On a personal level, we know of a Red Lake family comprised of a husband, a pregnant wife and two children that followed the truck for 25 kilometres, pulled it over because this stuff was spilling out onto them and were told by the driver that it was only mineral oil and that it could be cleaned up with some rags and gas and forgotten about. These people had to travel all the way to
Adjournment Debate
Winnipeg in a contaminated car before reading in the Winnipeg Free Press just what it was that had splashed all over their car. Their car has now been impounded and will be sent to Edmonton, I understand, for examination.
We know that the provincial hotline in Kenora advises those people who call with the suspicion that their cars may have been splashed with this substance to simply wash their cars down with water and paper towels and to put the paper towels in a plastic bag and take them to the dump. We know that the Quebec Government was led to believe by the company involved that the transformer was drained before shipment, and of course we now know that not to be the base at all.
We know that no one from the Department of Transport was on the scene for four days and that all that happened was that the federal Government made itself available to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. No one was on the scene for four days, and even then no one from the Department of the Environment or the Dangerous Goods Division of the Department of Transport was present. The only person present was someone who did a very technical assessment of the transformer that leaked. These are the sorts of things we know. Another thing we know is that the RCMP has seized three shipments of improperly labelled soil samples that the Ontario Ministry of the Environment shipped on commercial airliners without the appropriate labelling.
I want to make clear what I have been saying all along, and that is that I think the Ontario Ministry of the Environment has really bungled this affair. I think the federal Government has taken a far too lackadaisical and uncritical attitude toward the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and the handling of this matter by the Ontario Government. They should not be so trusting of their colleagues in the Ontario Government. They should have had a desire to be on site to see what was going on. Indeed, the Government of Manitoba has already had two people on site for some time now because it wanted to know what was going on, for the sake of the people in that neighbouring province.
I suggested that there should be a moratorium on the further transportation of PCBs until all regulations pertaining to their transportation were in place. The Minister seems to be considering something of that nature, although every once in a while he tries to accuse me of wanting a total moratorium on the transportation of all hazardous substances. That is not what I suggested, at all. I was very specific in what 1 suggested.
I think there should be a public inquiry into the matter so that we can learn more about just what went on and ascertain facts in addition to the ones we already know. After that inquiry if we have one, or if we do not have one, in any event the book should be thrown at these people. The book should be thrown at these polluters, not just on the merits of this particular case, but so that a clear signal is sent out by the Government on behalf of the people indicating that Canadians will no longer tolerate polluters acting in the negligent way

April 18, 1985
Adjournment Debate
they are in the habit of acting. We should draw the line and say that from here on in we will not tolerate this kind of behaviour. I think the Government could make an example of this particular company which would be useful for the environment and for the safety of the public for years to come.
Also I think the Minister should call for voluntary obedience under the regulations which will not come into effect until July
1.	Those regulations are public. They have been gazetted. I had a look at them this morning. They are available to the industry. Why does the Minister not call upon those companies that will be transporting dangerous substances to voluntarily obey the regulations until they come into force?
The Minister should also make clear just what the regulations will do and will not do. I think too much has been made of the regulations. Even if they were in effect, all that would have happened is that the speed of the response to the event and the accuracy of the response to the event would have been improved. The leak itself would not have been improved because regulations concerning containers in which dangerous substances are to be carried will not come into effect until even later. They have not even been gazetted. Let us not have the Government, particularly the Minister of the Environment, make too much of the regulations which are coming into effect.
Finally, again with respect to the regulations, we will not change all of this just by regulations or laws, although I think in this case the Government should seek every avenue possible to throw the book at whoever is determined to be responsible. We will change it when we finally get around to asking some very serious questions about the extent to which our whole economy depends upon dangerous substances. That is a point which I made earlier this week and one that I wanted to reiterate before hearing the reply of the Hon. Minister.


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, my colleague has indicated that he does not know what are the areas of responsibilities of the various federal departments or how responsibilities are shared between the federal and provincial governments. I suggest that he should spend some time trying to find out how, in this country which is a confederation, responsibilities are shared between the federal and provincial governments.
The purpose of the federal legislation is to define common standards for all provinces, while provinces must take these standards and adapt them through legislation to their particular needs.
He told me that I should pressure the various provinces and companies into living up to the standards currently in force. That I have done and will continue to do. We have published a handbook which describes in minute details how to dispose of, transport and contain PCB. Most companies and several provinces have immediately agreed to apply these standards, so that, although the legislation has not come into force yet, Quebec is already applying these standards, and as soon as we
were advised that PCB would be transported, we immediately advised the Quebec Department of the Environment, as it was our federal responsibility to do, that a dangerous substance would be transported, asking that an inspector be sent to supervise the loading of the PCB.
My hon. friend said that four days elapsed before we responded. In fact, we were involved from the very beginning, in a manner consistent with our mandate and jurisdiction. Moreover, as soon as we learned that some PCB had been spilled on the highway, I contacted immediately Mr. Kells, the Ontario Minister and advised him that our expertise was at his disposal, with all the technical support he could need. It is indeed the responsibility of the province to act when such a crisis occurs. On the other hand, Mr. Kells knows that he can count on the assistance of the federal government and, as a matter of fact, he has asked us to contribute to put together a plan to dispose of the PCB waste. We indicated to him that we would help him implement this plan to dispose of all the waste and other substances which had to be removed because of the spill.
We are therefore very present and very much aware of PCB hazards. If the Hon. Member is so concerned about these hazards, and since the use of PCB has been banned since 1978, why did he not stand up in the House on several occasions to demand that provinces agree once and for all on a disposal site, something which has been delayed since 1978.


ENERGY-NOTIFICATION OF ONTARIO PREMIER. (B) PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING WITH ONTARIO PREMIER
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, on April 2, I raised a matter in this House with the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) involving the energy accord between Canada and the western provinces. The issue today, Mr. Speaker, is not whether we are discussing the east versus the west or anything like that. What I want to know from this Government is how much will the consumers of this country have to pay-not in oil prices-in excess taxes? My question involved taxes. I want to ask this Government how much the consumers of this country will have to pay in excess taxes because of the oil deal which was signed by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney)?
What we on this side of the House, and what the people of this country also want to know, is why was the Premier of the largest oil consuming province of this country, the Province of Ontario, not consulted by the Government? I see that the Parliamentary Secretary is taking notes. He is probably going to answer that the Minister of Energy of Ontario was consulted. That's fine, Mr. Speaker, but that is not what I am asking. I want to know very specifically when the Premier was consulted. I asked that question on April 2 and, of course, the Deputy Prime Minister answered a totally different question. He has a right to answer whatever he likes but, as you know, Mr. April 18, 1985

Speaker, he should at least answer the questions we are asking, which he did not do on that particular date.
According to estimates made by various people, the $1.3 billion lost by the federal Government in reduced revenues, if applied to the gasoline sales tax, would amount to an increase of 18 cents a gallon. You perhaps will recall, Mr. Speaker, that 18 cents a gallon is a figure which creates a certain adverse reaction amongst the Tories. Whenever they hear the words "18 cents a gallon" it really does something to them. But it is understandable. They were defeated the last time they tried to implement an 18 cent a gallon increase. What we want is the assurance that there will not be a disastrous 18 cent a gallon tax increase like the last time those Tories were in power. I am sure you recall vividly the disaster the last time they were in power.
If they can give us the assurance, and there is really only one means by which we can have that assurance, that there will not be a gasoline tax increase, I will be satisfied. But that is the only one way.
Two weeks from today there is a provincial election in the Province of Ontario. Why did the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) of this Government not table his Budget, including or excluding any disastrous tax increases that he proposes before the Ontario election? It is not a coincidence that this whole country has to wait for the political gain of those Tories who are not strong enough, who do not have the fortitude to bring in their Budget before the provincial election? I suspect that the Premier of Ontario probably tried to delay both the Western Accord and the Budget. However, there must have been a saw-off some place and they agreed they would delay the announcement of the Budget, because that would likely be a total disaster in terms of the vote-getting ability of the Premier of Ontario. It is being proved now during this election that the Premier's campaign is a total disaster anyway. However, we did not know that at the time, so the Premier of Ontario was not consulted before the oil-pricing agreement was signed. Afterwards he came to Ottawa, called an emergency meeting with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and pleaded his case.


John Horton McDermid: He was here anyway.


Don Boudria: I am told by the Parliamentary Secretary, and others, that there was no emergency meeting. Perhaps it was not an emergency, but let us say they called it in a hurry; on a few hours' notice they managed to have this meeting. Following the meeting we asked the Premier of Ontario what assurances he got. He replied, "well, I am told that we are going to do our best". Mr. Speaker, the Premier of Ontario was not consulted. He came to Ottawa in a hurry, came out empty handed, and this Government still refuses to bring in a Budget before the Ontario election.
We need to have the assurance that this Government is ready to put its money where its mouth is, and I challenge the
Adjournment Debate
Parliamentary Secretary to give us his assurance-put his seat on the line-that there will not be a gasoline tax increase.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, as you can see by my attire, I have another engagement tonight, but when I heard that the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) was raising a question concerning energy I had to postpone that engagement and come in here to listen to him. Having done so, I am sorry I did not keep the engagement and ask someone else to reply.


Don Boudria: Because you do not know the answer.


John Horton McDermid: I listened to you without interrupting and I would expect the same courtesy. You have seven minutes, i have only three.
Listening to what he had to say, it is obvious he has sugar plums dancing through his mind. His imagination is running away with him. He should have stayed in the provincial House. If he wanted to run in the Liberal campaign for a seat, he should have stayed there instead of fighting the election here in the House of Commons, because it is just not working.
I can tell him that the Western Accord reduced taxes for the consumers of Ontario. It has removed those taxes which were piled on, one after the other, by the previous Liberal Government. The Western Accord is removing those taxes, deregulating the industry, oil prices are falling on the world market and so will they here. That is what deregulation is all about and that is what the Western Accord is all about. It is also about getting the energy sector going again.
In my riding of Brampton-Georgetown I have 53 companies who service the oil patch directly with products, and probably more if I did a little more investigating. But there are 53 which I have been able to find that feed the oil patch directly. So if it is going well with them, so it will with industry in Ontario. Jobs are being created in Ontario and that is very, very important. He asked if the Government consulted with the Government of Ontario.


Don Boudria: No.


John Horton McDermid: Certainly it did.


Don Boudria: No, that is not what I said.


John Horton McDermid: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) was in constant contact with the Ontario Minister of Energy. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has allowed the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to deal with the other Ministers of Energy. If the Ontario Minister of Energy informed the Premier of what was going on at all times, which I am sure he did, that is the way communications work. Maybe, just maybe, if the former Liberal Government had communicated a little more with the provinces we would not have had all the bickering we have experienced over the last little while.

April 18, 1985
Adjournment Debate
Let me tell you that this Government is concerned about creating as many jobs in Ontario as is possible, and both the Atlantic Accord and the Western Accord are going to be good for all provinces in the country-not just the western provinces, not just Newfoundland, but all the provinces. It was done through consultation and without all the bickering we
have seen in the last little while, which the Hon. Member seems to want to continue to promote.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, April 19, 1985