1986-06-16

Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to inform the House this morning that in 1987, Canada will be celebrating the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless, in accordance with Resolution 37/221 passed by the UN General Assembly on December 20, 1982.
We all realize that like many other countries, rich or poor, Canada has too many citizens who cannot afford decent housing. New Government policies announced in the House last December are aimed at making resources available to Canadian men and women who need them most, while providing for greater flexibility with respect to local conditions.
However, if we compare our situation with the rest of the world, Canadians are privileged indeed. Beyond our borders, in Africa, Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean, housing problems are of an entirely different nature. It is hard to find words to adequately describe how widespread and intense the problem is and the suffering it causes. I am therefore very pleased to announce that next year, the Canadian International Development Agency and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, in accordance with Canada's decision to support the objectives of the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless, will be taking part in a conference sponsored by the Canadian Committee of the International Council on Social Welfare and the Canadian Association of Housing and Renewal. This conference, which will deal with housing for the needy, will be held in the fall of 1987. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is now looking into the possibility of financing further conferences and forums of this kind.
Mr. Speaker, Operation Africa 2000 which was launched by me in the House on May 6 of this year is an example of Canada's determination to help the people of Africa's rural areas to overcome famine and break out of the poverty cycle. Only a few days ago, at the Annual Convention of the Canadian Federation of Municipalities, I was very much impressed by the desire shown by representatives of our towns and cities to get involved in international development. The Federation has already launched a pilot project enabling
authorities from Third World towns and their Canadian counterparts to become better acquainted and exchange comments on their respective problems. This may result in useful co-operation.
Such initiatives, like others to be taken by Canada during the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless, are only a first step. Nevertheless, they bring us closer to the day when every family and every human being will be able to have not only a decent diet, pure water, primary health care and education, but decent housing, as well.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: As usual, Mr. Speaker, the Minister is always the exception which confirms the rule, and I want to thank her for advising us of her statement on Friday instead of following the tradition of her colleagues who tell us about a statement only an hour or half an hour before delivery. Again I commend and thank the Minister.
The only thing I deplore, and I am convinced the Minister feels the same way, is that we cannot devote more time this morning to the topic of the statement-she spoke for two and a half minutes, which will give me hardly four minutes on such a wide-ranging, significant and tragic issue. I know that the Minister and Hon. Members who are interested in this question regret this.
That being so, I can only support the initiative of the United Nations which have decided to set a year aside for reflection. However I must say that preparations were made for this International Year of Shelter for the Homeless.
Those who watched television last night were once again made vividly aware of big problems the world over. Whether we are talking about slums, as she said herself, or favelas in Third World cities, I think the situation of the homeless is tragic.
Yet it is obvious that we too have people who are suffering, be they on Indian lands or in Vancouver, those people who were thrown out of low rental units to accommodate Expo visitors-it will be a success and I urge Canadians to go there-but this could be done only by moving homeless people. It is imperative that we reflect on this and make Governments aware that homeless people also deserve assistance.
But what does the Canadian example represent in light of what is going on throughout the world? Of course there is no common measure.
I have always said, as I did again last Friday evening here in the House when Africa was the topic of debate-and the

June 16, 1986
Statements by Ministers
Minister says so on page three of her statement, on the occasion of the meeting of cities and towns-I said and I repeat that when Canadians are well informed they are always one step ahead of their Governments, regardless of their political views. It is important to properly inform the people and increase their awareness. When Canadians are properly informed of particular situations, they have always been and will continue to be more generous, understanding and open minded than any other Government.
On behalf of my party, therefore, I support this statement. We hope to see a great many initiatives during this year, a year which should not be felt to be just "another" so called international year of the United Nations on a given subject. I for one feel that we should be activists on these issues. Who has ever heard in Canada-I will conclude on this-that this year is the International Year of Peace?
Once a year has been proclaimed, we make fine statements, then we sit down and we are satisfied. We have done our share. I see that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. MacDonald) is here; she is part of a group of activists who want to do more. We should think and be concerned about these matters on a continuing basis. On behalf of my party, I want to tell you that we have this continuing concern and I hope that it will spread everywhere; this is a non-partisan issue and I thank the Hon. Minister once more for giving us on Friday advanced notice of her statement. I hope her colleagues of the Cabinet will do the same and I can assure her that we will support any initiative that is consistent with Canada's reputation in the world.


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I say with great regret that I am deeply disappointed with the Minister's statement on behalf of the Government in respect of how Canada intends to mark International Year of Shelter for the Homeless.
The Minister has said that the Government intends to participate in a conference which will be sponsored by the Canadian Committee of the International Council on Social Welfare and the Canadian Association of Housing and Renewal. I hate to say it, but it reminds me of the kind of reaction to urgent social problems of the previous Government. In terms of announced policies, that is all the Government has.
Also the Minister commented upon the fact that the housing problem and the problem of homelessness are acute in many countries of the world. She talked about visiting the camps for refugees and the slums and favelas of the cities of the Third World. There is no question that there are desperate problems in terms of homelessness in the Third World.
I, for one, would suggest that there are certain people in Canada who would exchange our climate for that in some of the Third World cities, and favelas there for their housing conditions in Canada. I believe we cannot afford to ignore the fact that homelessness is not only found in other parts of the world. It is a reality in this country. We have an increasing number of people living in poverty and an increasing number of people who do not know from where their next meal or their meals for the next month will come. There has been a tremendous growth in food banks in almost every major city across Canada. These food banks are now feeding tens of thousands of families per month in major cities such as Ottawa, Vancouver, Edmonton, Toronto, and Halifax. It is an indication of the greater degree of poverty that is finding root in the country than we had known just a few years ago. Some 4.5 million Canadians are living in poverty. There has been an increase of some 800,000 people from the beginning of the 1980s, and the situation appears to be getting worse, not better.
I should like to refer to my own situation, representing a riding on the doorstep of Parliament Hill. I know that homeless is not something abstract to be found in Africa, Latin America, or Asia; it exists right here. People who are homelessness find their way onto the Mall and into the Rideau Centre during the winter. The good citizens of Ottawa complain about them, but the reason they are there is that they have no other place to go which is at all warm and protected from the weather. If they are lucky, they may be able to get to a shelter at night.
People will recall how the citizens of Toronto and of Canada in general were shocked at the death by freezing of Drina Joubert in December of last year. It brought home, in a very dramatic way, how a woman of good background was pushed into abject poverty and ultimately to death because she fell through the cracks in our system.
We have some 20,000 to 40,000 people who live on the streets in Canada now. We have many Canadians living in desperately substandard housing conditions. Let us look in particular at our native population. People from other countries, when they see Canada being critical of actions of other countries, say that we are sanctimonious because of what happens with our own native population. I suspect they are right. For example, nearly half the Indian dwellings in the Northwest Territories have more than one person per room. Just over half the Indian dwellings in Yukon have no central heating. A third of the Indian dwellings in the Northwest Territories need major repairs. These situations exist here in Canada.
I urge the Government in the strongest possible way to do more about homelessness than just have a conference. We should have a commitment before the 1988 election to wipe out homelessness in Canada. We have the resources to do it, if we had the political will.
June 16, 1986


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
[Stage Direction]
Order for Return
2.	What is the total cost to the Government to operate both?

Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, as Chairman, I have the honour to present the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-45, an Act respecting employment, employer, and employee relations in the Senate and the House of Commons, with amendments, in both official languages.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE-FIRST REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. William C. Winegard (Guelph):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade.
This report focuses on the work and function of the new Communications and Cultures Branch of the Department of External Affairs. The report itself is not unusual, but I commend the process to you, Sir, and to my colleagues.
[Editor's Note: See Today's Votes and Proceedings]


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Canadian High Commission in	Canadian Embassy in Paris
London
1.	(a) 285
(i)	Canada based employees 85
Locally engaged *	200
(ii)	Canada based $3,418,000 Locally engaged $3,730,000
(b)	Trade Officers:	14(c)	Non-Canadians:	312.	$12,317,000
Total costs to operate the High Commission in London including Canada based and locally engaged personnel costs, post operating and capital budgets.
74

Total costs to operate the Embassy in Paris including Canada based and locally engaged personnel costs and the post operating and capital budgets.
* *
*
* *
*



PETITION


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present to the House of Commons a number of petitions containing the names of several hundred individuals in Metropolitan Toronto. They request that the Government intervene in the issue of gasoline prices at the pump and insist that any decrease in the cost of crude oil be passed on to consumers.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 567 could be made an order for return, the return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: The question enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretarty has been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 567 be deemed to have been made an order for return?



QUESTION ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 396.



COSTS AND PERSONNEL OF HIGH COMMISSION IN LONDON AND EMBASSY IN PARIS

Mr. Vankoughnet: 1. How many employees are working at the (a) Canadian High Commission in London, England (b) Canadian Embassy in Paris, France and, in each case, what is the (i) category (ii) salary of the employee (b) how many are trade officers (c) how many are non-Canadians?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



DPW-CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS IN NEW BRUNSWICK

Mr. Howie: As of January 1, 1986, were any Department of Public Works construction projects under way in the Province of New Brunswick and, if so, what were they?
Return tabled.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: May I advise the House that because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by

June 16, 1986
Business of the House
12 minutes, beginning at ten o'clock this evening. Therefore, the adjournment proceedings will begin at 10.12 p.m.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Philip Derek Lewis: As you know, Mr. Speaker, we have been working for some time to try to finalize Private Members' Business so that Private Members will get their allotted time and Private Members' Hour will go ahead.
I have for presentation to the House a draft Order, upon which representatives of all three Parties worked. Your Honour may find unanimous consent to pass the following draft Order:
That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order of this House, the Order for the consideration of Private Members' Business during the period commencing this day until Thursday, June 19, 1986 shall be as follows:
1.	Motions (papers) No. 16-Mr. Boudria (Monday, June 16, 1986)
2.	Motion No. 119-Mr. Manly (Tuesday, June 17, 1986)
3.	Bill C-270-Mr. Fulton (Wednesday, June 18, 1986)
4.	Bill C-208-Mr. Isabelle (Thursday, June 19, 1986)
Provided that the privisions of the Special Order adopted on Wednesday, June 11, 1986 and Standing Orders 42 and 72 shall be deemed to be in force for the purposes of this Order and that during the hour that would otherwise be used for the consideration of Private Members' Business on Friday, June 20, 1986, the House shall consider government business.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion which requires unanimous consent to be introduced. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion agreed to and so ordered.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We had a Minister's statement today which took up 12 minutes of House time. I think there would be a disposition in the House to agree that that 12 minutes will not be added on to the end of today's standard sitting. If that meets the unanimous consent of the House, I am prepared to make that proposal, and I hope it will pass without debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Do I take it there is a unanimous desire in the House not to apply the rule with regard to the application of extension of time.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore, the adjournment proceedings will begin at 10 p.m. tonight.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, June 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-96, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977, be read the third time and passed.
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-96. In my view Bill C-96 is one of the most important pieces of legislation with which the House has dealt since it started sitting in late 1984. This piece of legislation affects in a very dramatic way the level of funding to the provincial Governments for postsecondary education and health care in Canada. In fact, the Bill has the effect of reducing the level of federal transfer payments from 7.5 per cent to 5 per cent.
I think it is important at the outset to try to determine first what the motivation was behind the introduction of this Bill and, second, what impact Bill C-96 will have on post-secondary education and health care.
First, concerning motivation, it is obvious that the Conservative Government is extremely concerned about the deficit. We share that concern. Where we do not agree with the Conservative Government is the method by which the federal deficit should be reduced or managed. It is obvious that the Conservative Government is prepared to do almost anything to balance the books. The Government tried unsuccessfully to reduce the indexation of senior citizens pensions in its first budget. That particular measure was universally condemned by the people of Canada and the Government of Canada was forced to back down.
The motivation behind that measure I submit is the same motivation that prompted the Conservative Government, through the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), to introduce Bill C-96, that is, deficit reduction. The people of Canada spoke very forcefully and vigorously when the Government tried to deindex senior citizens pensions. Canadians said it was unfair and unjust for the Government of Canada to try to reduce the deficit on the backs of senior citizens. They said it was wrong to attempt to reduce the deficit on the backs of any disadvantaged group in society, be they the disabled, the elderly, the young or the unemployed. It is not fair to pick on disadvantaged people and ask them to bear the brunt of deficit reduction.
In the first budget not only did the Government intend to reduce the indexation for senior citizen pensions, but it also proposed there be a capital gains deduction, a $125,000 cash bonanza for the wealthy in society. Canadians asked where was the justice and the fairness in that. They said if you want
June 16, 1986

to reduce the deficit that is your goal, but why, pray tell, pick on the senior citizens and then almost in the same breath give away to the wealthy in society what will amount to millions and millions of dollars over the foreseeable future? That is not economic justice, Mr. Speaker. It is cruel and insensitive. I submit that the Government in introducing Bill C-96 is being unjust and unfair. In effect it is once again attacking the disadvantaged in society, those I suppose who are least able to speak for themselves.
If there ever was a sacred trust, Mr. Speaker, that sacred trust is health care and education in Canada. Each and every one of us in this House and every Canadian from coast to coast has come to appreciate the level of health care and postsecondary education because it is second to none in the world. We have the best system anywhere and we ought to be extremely proud that regardless of where one lives in Canada, whether in a region that is economically prosperous or in a region that is economically poor, we are entitled by virtue of the fact that we live in this beautiful country to a certain level of education, a high quality of education. It does not matter whether one is born to riches or to rags, every young person is entitled to that quality of education. Likewise, it does not matter where one lives in Canada, what occupation or what vocation one has in life, whether a politician or a truck driver, we are entitled to a very high quality of health care. Those are basic, fundamental and sacred trusts. Any attempt by Government, or for that matter anyone, to derogate from those rights or to diminish the quality of health care or postsecondary education should be dealt with in a very forceful way. Yet here we have the Government of Canada, the Conservative Government that plays a major role ensuring the sacredness of that trust, ensuring equality of health care and education, introducing Bill C-96.
What is the impact of Bill C-96? Over the next five years, the provinces and territories will receive $8.1 billion less than they otherwise would receive were it not been for Bill C-96. This Bill is meant to transfer the deficit from the federal Government to the provincial Governments. Over the next five years $8.1 billion will be cut. If one looks at the reduction in the various provinces, for example in the province where I reside, just under $3 billion less will be going to the provincial Government from the federal Government in Ontario for health care and post-secondary education.
We know the problems that already exist in the Province of Ontario concerning health care and post-secondary education. I would suggest it is a legacy of the previous Conservative Government in Ontario. Is it any wonder that the good people of Ontario turfed out those Tories a year ago. That Government dared to threaten the quality of health care and postsecondary education in that province. Over the next five years Ontario will receive $2.9 billion less. If the Government of Ontario is to maintain the quality of health care and postsecondary education which exists in Ontario, it will have to come up with an additional $3 billion in revenue over the next five years.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
Mr. Nixon, the Treasurer of Ontario, will be asking how that can be done. As a result of Bill C-96 he has some very tough decisions to make. The Province of Ontario can either increase taxes by $3 billion over the next five years or it can cut services. It would have to cut in the area of health care and post-secondary education. That could be done by reducing the number of hospital beds or the level of research and development in the hospitals and universities. Class sizes could be increased and teaching staffs could be paid less. However, that is not acceptable. There is already a desperate shortage of financing for those particular areas in the Province of Ontario.
We in Ontario consider ourselves fortunate even though we are in a most difficult situation with regard to health care and post-secondary education. Notwithstanding that the quality is second to none, the costs increase yearly. If one is to maintain or increase that quality, which should be a goal of government, there must be a commitment and the political will to ensure it. We in Ontario will suffer tremendously under this Bill. Ontario has often been referred to as a "have province". What will the impact be on the "have not" provinces, the provinces which, because of regional disparities and other factors, are suffering more than the have provinces with regard to economic renewal?
What about Atlantic Canada? The Province of Newfoundland suffers from one of the highest unemployment rates in Canada and has some very serious financial problems. Over the next five years it will receive $200 million less than it would if the present agreement were honoured. Prince Edward Island will receive $41 million less than it would otherwise have received. Nova Scotia will receive $283 million less over the next five years. New Brunswick will receive $229 million less. Every province and region of Canada will suffer as a result of this Bill. The provinces are crying out to the Government of Canada that this is not fair. They are also saying that the Government has reneged on a contract. It has breached an agreement to increase federal transfer payments by 7.5 per cent.
When the Government took office two short years ago the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) told the people of Canada that there was a new era of federal-provincial relations and national reconciliation. You must recall those words, Mr. Speaker, because they are still ringing in the ears of every Premier in Canada. The Government said that it would consult before it acted. It said that, unlike the Liberal Party of the past, it would consult rather than acting unilaterally. That is what was said.


Mr. Gormley:: That is what they do.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John V. Nunziata: That is what was said, but what do they do? What happened to the consultation and the new era of national reconciliation? The Government unilaterally imposed these cuts and restrictions. Given the Government's pronouncements
_________________________________COMMONS DEBATES__________________________________June 16, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
m the early days of its mandate, one would think that it would call a meeting of first Ministers or Finance Ministers to tell them what it intended to do and to ask their opinions. The Government did not do that. It broke a contract with the provinces and all Premiers have condemned the Government. They have brought into question the credibility and integrity of the Government.
Canadians are saying that the Conservative Government has frittered away the trust and mandate it was given by the people of Canada in September, 1984. In a very dramatic fashion the people of Canada gave the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party a tremendous mandate for change. That is now gone. All that is left of the mandate is Conservative bodies in the House of Commons. According to any public opinion poll to which you wish to refer, the Conservative Party has lost that support and mandate. In fact, I suggest that the Conservative Party is very quickly losing its right to govern in Canada. The people of Canada will not forget. One of the central issues of Bill C-96 is credibility, honesty and integrity.
On March 23, 1982, a very prominent member of the
Conservative Cabinet said:
The only sign (the federal Government) shows of cutting spending is by shifting the burden of the established programs funding on to the provincial governments. The provinces are now moving into a deficit position, a position which will make it more difficult for them to finance this shift in spending.... That is not co-operative federalism. That is predatory federalism and it will not and cannot work in this country.
The famous Canadian who made that statement in the House of Commons on March 23, 1982, was none other than the Minister of Finance, the same Minister who introduced Bill C-96. Was he being sincere then or is he being sincere today? These are the words forever entrenched in Hansard for every Canadian to read. He went on to say:
Taking the action of unilaterally cutting the financing, which the Government is now proposing, and then having some discussions with the provinces, surely puts the cart before the horse. We should be reversing this procedure.
That was on March 24, 1982, page 15774-5 of Hansard, the now Minister of Finance speaking. Is it any wonder Canadians question the credibility of this Government?
The Liberal Party will not sit idly by and watch that Conservative Government attack some very basic institutions. The Liberal Party will not sit idly by and watch that Government attack post-secondary education or health care funding. We will stand up for the youth of Canada who are losing hope because of that Government. The Government is sending a message to the young people of Canada in the different measures it has taken, such as cutting Katimavik. The message our young people are getting is that Government does not care.
It is more concerned about its wealthy friends on Bay Street and more paranoid about the deficit than the well-being of the young. The Liberal Party believes very strongly that our youth are our future. Once you take away their hope, there is nothing left. Our young people deserve that hope.
I note you have indicated my time is up. I would ask for unanimous consent of the House to continue-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, no!


John V. Nunziata: -with my submissions. I note Conservative Members are all saying no because they do not want to hear about this legislation. I will therefore anxiously await their questions or their speeches to learn how they might justify this cruel and insensitive legislation which we will fight tooth and nail all along the line.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments?


Mr. Gagliano:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague about the effect of this Bill on education in his own province. The Government is talking about free trade. How can we go into free trade negotiations if we reduce the opportunities for higher education for our youth? Can he describe to us what the situation would be in his own Province of Ontario if this legislation is implemented?


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for asking that very important question. I would also note that not one Conservative Member of Parliament stood up to ask a question. Not one single solitary Conservative Member of Parliament had the courage to stand up and try to defend this Bill or criticize my submissions. That means they are either sleeping, and I do not believe they are unless they have mastered the art of sleeping with their eyes open, or that this legislation is indefensible and they agree whole-heartedly with each and every word I spoke.
In response to my colleague, I would point out that the Province of Ontario is extremely worried about this legislation.
I pointed out earlier that Ontario will receive $3 billion less over the next five years in federal transfer payments. This very directly affects the universities that are already under-funded because of the previous provincial Conservative Government. The new Liberal Government of Ontario has already introduced measures to increase the financing and therefore the quality of post-secondary education which was tragically neglected by the previous Government.
Chief Justice Dickson of the Supreme Court of Canada recently spoke out on this issue. One cannot help but agree whole-heartedly with what he said in pointing out that universities are desperately short of money. He said:
It has been said by many people that education is too important to be left to educators. That may be true. But it is also true that education is too important to be left to ministers of finance.
This Bill is from the Minister of Finance and what the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada is saying is that he does not trust Ministers of Finance to deal with education because invariably the educational system is threatened. He goes on to say:
Second-class funding of universities will inevitably lead to second-class teachers, second-class students and-ultimately-a second-class nation.
COMMONS DEBATES_________________________________________14429
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
June 16, 1986
That is the crux of the issue. We have no doubt that this legislation will render our universities into second-class institutions because of its insensitive nature. Universities need money to operate and the increases should be more than simply the rate of inflation. Universities conduct research and are continually striving to increase the quality of education. One cannot simply say that as long as financing keeps up with the rate of inflation it will suffice. It is not good enough. They need more, and it has been shown that universities suffer more when their funding increases are pegged to the inflation rate.
Students and professors, indeed all those involved with universities, have roundly condemned this legislation. I need not quote all those individuals and groups who appeared before the committee. Suffice it to say that there was a very strong message delivered to the Conservative Government, but it has fallen upon deaf ears. In pressing for this legislation the Government is once again showing that it is not listening to Canadians, notwithstanding the lofty pronouncements it made over a year ago.


Mr. Hopkins:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the Hon. Member for-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: -York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) for a clear and succinct description of the evidence that here again is another example of a total failure by the Government to carry out its promises. The Hon. Member quoted the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) saying the exact opposite to what he is doing in this Bill.
The Hon. Member has been talking about medicare and post-secondary education. Does he not think that in Ontario, which pays the largest amount of taxes of any province and therefore shares more with other provinces, will now not only be paying more as its share but also will be losing something like S2.9 billion by 1992? Will the Hon. Member give the House an idea of how Ontario is going to find this money? Will it raise taxes to make up the $2.9 billion loss despite the fact we will still be paying a larger share to the other provinces because the federal Government has failed to keep its promises of the last election, particularly those made by the Minister of Finance? What effect will this have on other things under the the provincial Government in Ontario? What about the municipalities? Is it going to mean less money from the Province of Ontario to the municipalities and, hence, more taxes on local taxpayers? What is the downdrain effect of what this Tory Government is doing to every Canadian right down to their individual homes today?


John V. Nunziata: I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his question. His points are extremely well taken in terms of what impact there will be in the Province of Ontario. I would submit, thank goodness, in the Province of Ontario we have a Liberal Government headed by Premier David Peterson who is very sensitive to the needs of the universities, and to the needs
of hospitals and the health care system in Ontario. He will be faced with a very difficult decision, together with his Treasurer, Mr. Nixon. The Government of the Province of Ontario will have, in some way, to make up the shortfall of $3 billion. I have every confidence in the Liberal Government of Ontario that before they in any way diminish the level of health care and post-secondary education that they will look to other measures first. I very strongly and sincerely believe that the Government of the Province of Ontario has its priorities straight and is fair in terms of its deliberations.
If there have to be cuts, and we hope that there will not have to be cuts-it is almost inevitable given this legislation-then the Government of Ontario will no doubt look to other areas before it looks to health care and post-secondary education, if at all. Of course the other option is to raise taxes, but that is not really an option in the Province of Ontario, which already pays a tremendous amount of taxes. My hon. collegue is quite right, municipalities will no doubt bear the brunt of Bill C-96.
I note you have indicated that my time is up, but I would simply in closing ask the Government to reconsider the legislation in view of the almost universal condemnation of Bill C-96.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I consider it a welcome part of the responsibilities of a Member of this House to bring to bear some comments on Bill C-96. I have to confess that my stomach is feeling a little uncomfortable today. I am experiencing some nauseau, and, therefore, I want to express my appreciation to the House in denying an extension of time to the Member for York South Weston (Mr. Nunziata) because had he continued I doubt that I would have been able to continue my presence here without having to exit for a serious medical purpose.
We just heard a Member of the Liberal Party, which only a very short time ago held the Government of this country, the Government that was responsible in 1982 for the first shot at decreasing the rate of increase in funding to post-secondary education, stand in this House and attribute exclusive culpability to the present Government. I note too that he was lauding the progress made in the Province of Ontario, and of course there has been some, but it is worth noting that even after the slightly progressive changes in financing of post-secondary education which have been implemented by the provincial Government of Ontario, Ontario still stands very low on the totem pole with respect to post-secondary education, a position which has to be an embarrassment when we are compared to other poorer provinces in this country much more strapped than Ontario with higher rates of unemployment and less advanced industrial development. Many of the provinces are making more progress with respect to post-secondary education than the Province of Ontario even now.
Of course the Tory Government, which is responsible for introducing this Bill, is guilty. It is guilty of failing to meet the promises it made during the course of the election. One need only to refer to the Progressive Conservative policy statement

June 16, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
that "We are committed to sustaining the current federal financial commitment according to the formula set out in the 1977 agreement. We believe that financing of post-secondary education is an imporant priority for both levels of Government".
Indeed, it is a priority for both levels of government. That brings attention to one of the significant tragedies of the enactment of this legislation at this time. We are going to cut, over the next five years, EPF transfer payments by about $7 billion. This we are going to do in the face of protestations from the provinces. It has to be a step that everyone must regard as inconsistent with promises of consultation. It must be regarded as the height of stupidity at a time when most would argue that the federal Government and the provincial Governments ought to be coming to some sort of an agreement with respect to defined levels of support for post-secondary education and health.
How can you expect to enter into productive negotiations for assured levels of post-secondary funding at the provincial and federal level, particularly when one seeks to find a commitment on the part of the provinces to initiate the process, by cutting funding of EPF.
Let me just say parenthetically that I am perfectly conscious and very much concerned about the implications to the health system of these cuts. Others within my party will address that specifically. I want to address this issue particularly from the perspective of two areas; youth policy and the development of a national science and technology policy.
The motivation of this legislation is to cut the deficit. Indeed, I heard someone from among Members opposite say in committee that if we can just get this deficit under control we will then be able to do something for post-secondary education and health.
If one looks at the deficit, and looks at it seriously, one inevitably is going to be concerned about it. Rational people are always concerned about a situation in which one spends more than one takes in. If one looks at the reasons for the federal deficit, surely among all the factors to which it can be attributed the most important is that there are serious deficiencies in the economy of this country. In its brightest moments this Government has identified the reasons for our economic deficiencies. Yet it has not managed to target in on the need for a more highly developed industrial base and greater commitment to research and technological development. In that way what is recognized in an analytical sense is often what must be done. The message from this surely is that small increases in expenditures, or a realloction of funds, or rearrangement of priorities should be sought to ensure that our industrial base, our secondary manufacturing and, most specifically, our science and technology will be enhanced.
Last week I had the pleasure of participating in a national forum on science policy which was convened by the Minister of
State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle), a step for which he certainly should be congratulated. Representatives from all those sectors concerned about the development of research, science and technology in this country were in attendance at that meeting.
There was some difference of opinion on a number of areas concerning the enhancement of science and technology in this country. However, there was absolute unanimity with respect to the need to do something about basic research and the quality of and accessibility to our post-secondary institutions. There was unanimity that the cuts in the rate of increase in Established Programs Financing was detrimental to the development of a future for this country that would be adaptable to the world-wide economic circumstances which we must challenge. No one dissented from that point of view.
It must have been extremely embarrassing to the Minister, who I am sure was sincere in attempting to begin the development of science and technology policy, to be exposed as being part of a Government that would deprive the post-secondary system of the much needed opportunity to improve and enable us to better compete.
One might ask whether there has been any serious effort by the Government to elaborate a strategy for the future or whether it is interested in only one thing, the bilateral free trade negotiations. At times it seems that the bilateral free trade negotiations are a substitute for policy development. The Government seems unwilling to develop such a policy in all the areas where serious investment must be made.
I have already indicated that post-secondary education does not only involve research and development, but the education of a skilled workforce. I must confess that in the course of the discussions at the forum last week, I objected to some degree to hearing young people referred to as our most valuable human resource. I think that is probably a reflection of the same kind of attitudinal problem we have toward research, science and technology and the development of a solid, modern industrial base. We are so preoccupied with our resource base-our fish, trees and so on-that we cannot recognize the need to be concerned about young people unless we identify them as a resource, like fish, trees and forests. This fact is another reason for my concern about this issue. Our young people are being ignored as a result of depriving the postsecondary system of necessary funding, failing to enter into appropriate negotiations with the provinces, and (taking action which would forestall appropriate negotiations.
The Government purports to be in the process of developing a policy for youth. Whenever the issue of a youth policy arises, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), or her shadow, seem to convey the notion that the only issue with respect to a youth policy is whether Challenge '86 or the Canadian Jobs Strategy is functioning. We know that both those programs have been called into question. I simply want to draw to the attention of the House that youth policy concerns a number of issues besides training programs. Such a policy involves doing something besides enhancing a
June 16, 1986

program that already increases the bias against the ability of the very poor and low income people to obtain training. It concerns increasing the opportunity for all classes of young people to have access to a good university and college system.
The Hon. Member for York South-Weston earlier lauded the Canadian post-secondary system as being one of the best in the world. He said that it is possible to go to some kind of postsecondary institution anywhere in the country. It is true that we have universal accessibility to a second-rate university system that will be made worse by the action of the Government, as it was made worse by the failures of the previous Liberal Government. A youth policy must attend to accessibility and quality of the post-secondary system. One does not begin developing a youth policy by cutting back the federal commitment to a system that is so important to our future.
During the hearings in the legislative committee on Bill C-96, one might have thought that there would be someone with responsibility and concern for the post-secondary system who would have supported this idea that we really should cut the federal contribution to post-secondary education and health because it will accomplish something that will benefit youth and enhance our efforts in improving the future economic status of this country. However, when one looks through what was said in the committee, one finds just the opposite. For example, the Canadian Teachers' Federation stated:
Adequately funded post-secondary institutions are absolutely vital to Canada's social, economic and cultural development.
To cut back on the national commitment to the funding of post-secondary education will short change future generations of young people whose education will suffer as a result... Canada's ability to survive and prosper in more and more competitive world markets will be impaired.
Did the Canadian Union of Public Employees rush in to suggest that EPF cuts will benefit our youth and Canada's economic future? They said:
Every day our members experience the cruel effects of cutbacks and underfunding. They are the people who are underpaid and overworked, and they are the people who are not being allowed to do a good job because of underfunding.
The Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada submitted a brief to the committee. They state:
We are opposed to this Bill because it may lead to a further erosion of the financial base of universities. We believe that such a consequence would be detrimental to the interests of Canada.
They go on to say:
Bill C-96 is a dangerous piece of legislation.
Indeed it is. Did the Government receive support from the Association of Canadian Community Colleges? No. They see a threat to their continued value as a means of access to opportunity for young people.
The Canadian Association of University Teachers is a group that represents people who have the capacity to analyse and reach reasonable conclusions about the appropriateness of legislation. They certainly would be expected to see the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
tremendous value in Bill C-96 which motivates the Government to bring it before the House. What do they say? "Funding cuts did not occur over the past decade because policymakers at either level of Government were concerned with quality; they were made because Government Leaders decided to increase spending money on buying stocks in oil companies, on bailing out inefficient banks, on building under-used airports and on refurbishing Ministers' offices". Calling attention, simultaneously, Mr. Speaker, to the tremendous commitment of the previous level of Government and how much better it was than the present Government! Ha!
And then, from the Canadian Federation of Students:
Limiting the growth of EPF transfers to the provinces as outlined in Bill C-96 will compound the underfunding problems which have become evident at postsecondary institutions across the country.
But if they had any doubt whatever about the critical stupidity of this legislation and how dangerous this legislation is, how inconsistent with all the pronouncements of Government this legislation is, how it threatens the future of not only our youth but also our economy, then go to the unusual statement made by a Justice of the Supreme Court who departed from practice because the issue was so important. Mr. Justice Dickson said:
Let me speak first to Governments, provincial and federal. Please do not choke off the funding of universities. Canada must have good universities with outstanding teachers and world class research facilities. Second funding of universities will inevitably lead to second-class teachers, second-class students and, ultimately, second-class nation.
Two consecutive Governments have been committed to a second-class post-secondary system in this country and it is about time that this process was called to a halt in the interests of our nation's future, in the interests not only of our human resources but also of our youth.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concerns raised by my hon. colleague. As I indicated earlier, this particular caucus, this Liberal caucus, shares in the profound concern regarding Bill C-96.
I note that the Hon. Member also referred to statements made by Mr. Justice Dickson, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, who has, over the years, expressed very serious concerns about the level of post-secondary education financing in Canada. The Hon. Member also referred to statements I made about the levels of health care and post-secondary education being second to none in the world. I am sure that he does not disagree with me when I say that we do have the finest post-secondary education system anywhere in the world, but that it is being threatened by actions at various levels of government and that Bill C-96 is one such threat. However, at this particular point in time, notwithstanding the desperate lack of funding, we still have an educational system that we can be proud of. We must maintain that standing. I would not go so far as to say that our postsecondary education has been rendered second class yet; but,

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act given Bill C-96 and other actions of the Conservative Government, that may be inevitable over the very near future.
It is important that people like Mr. Justice Dickson speak out. Although his statements met with some criticism, if one looks at the merits of what he had to say, one finds he made a lot of sense. People suggest that judges should not speak out; but in my view, and this is a personal view, when matters are so fundamental as post-secondary education, there is a role for the judiciary to play.
My question to the Hon. Member is with respect to a statement made by Mr. Justice Hall, another judge who reviewed health care in Canada a few short years ago. He said there were fundamental needs, like education, which Canadians could meet collectively and pay through taxes. In effect, concerning post-secondary education and health care, he said there is a sacred trust and that, if necessary, taxes should be increased to maintain a particular level.
I would like the Hon. Member to share his views and he has expressed them with respect to post-secondary education. In his community of Windsor, what impact will there be as a result of a cut-back in the level of financing for health services?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I gather there are a number of questions contained in the comments by the Hon. Member. Obviously, we are faced with severe problems with respect to hospital equipment in Windsor. There is at present a controversy in Windsor over whether there will be sufficiently adequate funds to provide for an addition to one of the local hospitals. I would like to go back to the issue of comparison of the university system in Canada versus that of the United States. The fact is that there has been an erosion of the quality of the funding provided to universities in this country over too long a period of time. Let me just cite what has happened within a relatively recent period, through the last two years. I bring this to the Hon. Member's attention because I want to make another point.
First of all let me ask, are we losing researchers from our universities at an increasing rate because of under-funding of the universities' basic operating requirements and because researchers are inadequately funded? As President Wright of Waterloo said, if MIT was being funded at the rate the University of Waterloo was being funded, then it would probably not be, by any measure, a first-class institution.
In the period 1983-84 to 1985-86, the biggest increase in post-secondary funding provided to universities was in Ontario, at a rate of 13.1 per cent. The lowest was in British Columbia, where there was a decrease of 9.7 per cent. However, when one looks to the United States, to Michigan, which is comparable to Ontario, one finds an increase of 26 per cent. With respect to the State of Alabama one sees that over that period of time university funding was increased by 53 per cent in that state. The University of Alabama receives a per student grant which is five times greater than the per student grant provided in Ontario.
June 16, 1986
The Hon. Member must also know, as I mentioned parenthetically, that the University of Toronto is really the only university in the country which can be considered to be first-rate, by international judgment. Alabama is not exactly the focus of liberalism and universal opportunity, yet it receives five times more than the per student grant received in Ontario. Our system is taking a headlong plunge, not to second-rate but to third-rate. The Government is making a contribution to that plunge.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ with my hon. colleague. I do not believe it is fair to compare our postsecondary system to the one in place in the United States. I suppose one can look at the per capita funding from the state Government or from the federal Government. However, my friend knows very well that in terms of equality of opportunity there is absolutely no comparison between Canada and the United States. I am speaking of whether each American from coast to coast has an equal opportunity to post-secondary education. In Canada, students pay a tuition fee of sorts which is a very small part of the actual cost of running our universities.
I had the pleasure of having several interns from Michigan work in my office over the last three to four weeks. They pointed out to me the cost to the student of post-secondary education in Michigan, which is similar to other states in the United States, where post-secondary education is becoming something that is only available to the rich.
I would like my friend to comment on the equality of opportunity. As Mr. Justice Dickson put it, the equality of opportunity goes to the very root of Canadian values in that we believe very strongly that one should not have to have considerable sums of money, or be born into a wealthy family, before one has the opportunity to a high quality post-secondary education. Will my hon. friend comment with respect to his research into post-secondary education in the United States in terms of whether the equality of opportunity comes anywhere close to the opportunity which exists in Canada for young people?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I think it is about time we set some Hon. Members straight. The participation rate in Canada in post-secondary education is 16 per cent. The participation rate in Michigan is 40 per cent. In the State of California it is 60 per cent. The University of Michigan is the most expensive institution in Michigan. The average tuition fee in states such as Michigan, New York, California, and increasingly more so in the South, does not exceed, on average, our own. The tuition fees are highest among private institutions and some of the very large multi-function universities. So the participation rate in the United States is still higher than it is in Canada.
With respect to research and operational costs, first, all research in universities in the United States is funded by the federal Government through the granting agencies there.
June 16, 1986

What is paid for? The cost of research, the cost of salaries and the cost of overhead. Research is not dependent upon state funding. That is not the situation in Canada. Here, the universities are not only suffering from the inadequacies of the operating funds that are provided to them by the provinces in concert with the federal Government through EPF, they also have to pay for the overhead costs for what research funds are provided, almost dollar-for-dollar.
Hon. Members have probably heard of the professor who has now left the University of Waterloo because he needed something in excess of $100,000 per annum for research. A $100,000 research grant in the United States is an average grant; it is not one that is regarded as being particularly noteworthy. As far as research institutions are concerned, our universities are undoubtedly second-rate, on average. This is not to suggest that we do not have first-rate scholars. We have a great many first rate scholars struggling under second and third-rate conditions, and the two together lead to a clear result.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker,
I also want to take part in the debate on Bill C-96 to speak about the main problems raised by the provinces and those who appeared before the legislative committee, and to quote some of their comments. These groups maintained that the federal Government should not be reducing its financial contribution to post-secondary education at a time when major technological changes are occurring in Canada and young people need more training to face the challenge of the future.
Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) will address the country this evening to explain the importance of free trade with the United States. At the same time, today, we are debating legislation to reduce provincial transfers to support post-secondary education and finance research in our universities.
How can the Prime Minister succeed this evening in convincing Canadians that free trade will be beneficial at the very moment when he is cutting back on the means to allow Canadians to become competitive, to finance research, to continue their studies and to support our high technology programs?
Once more, Mr. Speaker, we are faced with the operational procedure of the Conservative Government, which is to say one thing and to do another.
Theses groups which appeared before the Legislative Committee on Bill C-96 also asked the federal Government not to reduce its contribution to health care financing at a time when the proportion of older Canadians is increasing and new and very costly medical equipment is coming on the market.
Mr. Speaker, everyone is concerned about the fact that there will be more and more older people in the future. Yet, the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
Government is reducing provincial transfers which would help us to face this problem which will affect all of us eventually.
You are certainly aware, Mr. Speaker, of the problems Quebec hospitals are having, of our over-extended emergency services, of the debate which is going on everyday in the provinces and of the problem that we are having in providing the necessary medical services to the population.
Yet, the Government is trying to reduce its financing. How can the Quebec Government solve the urgent problems facing its hospitals and outpatient clinics if the federal Government takes away $66 million?
Those groups that appeared before the Legislative Committee also said the federal Government should have allowed the normal five year period to lapse before announcing changes to the agreements. Again, Mr. Speaker, this was yet another one of the 300-plus promises made by the Progressive Conservative Party during the last election, when they were committed to opening up the dialogue with the provinces. They assured all Canadians that there would be consultation and co-operation with the provinces. But what we have now is exactly the opposite. They did not abide by the normal five years period before announcing changes to the federal-provincial agreements, and they are making very major cuts.
Mr. Speaker, those groups also wondered whether the federal Government should not review its policies. On the one hand, it compensates the uninsured depositors of the banks that went bankrupt, it removes the tax on capital gains, it phases out the oil and gas tax in the producing provinces, it increases deductions under registered retirement savings plans, and finally it reduces payments for health care and post-secondary education.
Mr. Speaker, if the federal Government's exercise is only to roll back the deficit, why should that group of people who are the most in need pay more, why should that group of people who do not need them get all the benefits and deductions? There is the question. What we have been consistently saying on this side of the House, in the Official Opposition, is that we have facing us a Government that is taking from the poor in order to give to the rich. This is what everything boils down to, Mr. Speaker. They gave close to $2 billion to people who had deposited $60,000 or more in those banks, those two Western banks which went bankrupt. What were at stake there were no small savings, Mr. Speaker. People who had those deposits very well knew they were doing it because of the higher interest rates they were getting, and those were not standard interest rates. They very well knew that was very risky.
How many people now, in the past and in the future will invest in a small businesses? That is a high risk venture. The Minister of State (Small business) (Mr. Bissonnette) even said only 20 per cent manage to stay afloat.
Will those people who invested in small businesses be compensated if they lose their money? No, Mr. Speaker. They will not be compensated. There is no legislation that provides for it. But there was no legislation either that provided for

June 16, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
compensation for those people who had deposits of more than $60,000 in those banks. Deposit insurance is provided up to the $60,000 limit, and so is compensation. But this Government came up with a special Bill to compensate those people.
On that occasion they forgot about reducing the deficit. But now the federal deficit is to be reduced, and they cut back their payments to the provinces. They do not abide the usual five-year period for reducing the deficit.
Mr. Speaker, they are reducing the deficit but on the backs of the provinces. Not too long ago, we saw the Quebec Minister of Finance in his first Budget introducing very significant tax increases, very specific tax increases as a result of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, there has been discussions all across the land for a number of years, because the Conservatives, even when in Opposition, had a task force travelling across the country asking whether deductions at the source, or taxes that are deducted from wages and salaries for such things as unemployment insurance, health insurance, the Canada Pension Plan or the Quebec Pension Plan, were not too heavy a tax burden, especially for small businesses.
It had even recommended a change in the system either with the transfer of thoses costs in a general fund or an assistance to those employers in the form of a tax credit. And now, Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Minister of Finance, as a result of Bill C-96 which cuts back payments to the provinces, moneys for health care, is compelled to increase employers' contributions to health insurance.
Those contributions were already too high; employers were already paying 3 per cent of their payroll to the provincial government for health insurance. This was a rather high expenditure which decreased competitiveness whenever we tried to export our goods and our services . The Quebec Governement, as a result of Bill C-96, has increased that contribution which will remain so until the problem raised by Bill C-96 which cuts back federal payments, is settled.
Mr. Speaker, how can we say today that small businesses need help? How can we say that small businesses create all the jobs if at the same time by indirect means such as this bill, we are trying to stifle any hope that those people could entertain?
Recently, Mr. Speaker, I personally asked Canadian businessmen what were their problems and what were the solutions they recommended so that as legislators sitting on both sides of the House or as the Government we could help to improve that very important sector of the Canadian economy. One of the suggestions made by over 80 per cent of the respondents was this one: Find a way or a system to reduce contributions which the employer has to pay for social programs.
Businessmen are not against social programs; on the contrary, they would even like to have a pension fund for small businesses because they believe that financing should be reorganised to make sure that it is well distributed within an
envelope, a tax base. Mr. Speaker, with Bill C-96, the opposite is happening. As a result of reduced payments, the provinces, especially those with a limited tax base, have to increase taxes or reduce services. Quebec did not cut services but decided to increase taxes. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the poorer Canadian taxpayers will have to pay the cost and the Government will reduce its deficit to increase the provincial deficits.
To appreciate the extent of that deficit, I would like to quote somes figures. For instance, and not because the other provinces are less important, but some of my colleagues from Ontario have already raised the matter, so I will refer to my own province, that is Quebec. For 1986-87, federal transfers to Quebec will be reduced by $82.3 million; for 1987-88, by $174.9 million; for 1988-89, by $277.2 million; for 1989-90, by $189.2 million; for 1990-91, by $512.4 million, and for the last of these five years, 1991-92, by $647.6 million, which makes a total of $2,083.6 million.
For Canada, this represents a total of $317.4 million this year, in 1986-87; for 1987-88, $676.8 million; for 1988-89, $1,076.7 million; for 1989-90, $1,516.9 million; for 1990-91, $2,004.2 million; and for 1991-92, $2,541.8 million, for a total' of $8,133.8 million.
Mr. Speaker, that is how the federal Government will reduce its deficit, that is how the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) will be able to come back to the House and brag that he has reduced the deficit. He is doing so at the expense of the provinces and of Canadians for whom post-secondary education is very important if they are to face the future and free trade with the United States, which the Conservative Government considers its special project and perhaps its only important economic project. Yet, this is where the cut-backs will be.
We are going through a period when the number of senior citizens in need of medical care is increasing. Yet, funds for hospitals are being reduced. In addition, we have been told that we are going through a period of negotiations, of cooperation with the provinces, but the Government has forgotten to consult the provinces and ignored the usual procedure which is to wait five years and to have at least one First Ministers' Conference to discuss the issue.
It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, how the Conservatives were outraged when the Liberal Government was discussing its 5-and 6-program to fight inflation and how proud they are now of the economic situation even though it is the result of the Liberal fight to reduce inflation.
At the time, Mr. Speaker, the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) objected to the 6-and 5-program to reduce inflation, and I would like to quote exactly what he said in the House in a debate on March 23, 1982, and I quote the words of the present Minister of Finance: "The only sign it shows of cutting spending is by shifting the burden of the established programs funding on to the provincial governments. The provinces are now moving into a deficit position, a position which will make it more difficult for them to finance this shift in spending... That is not co-operative federalism. That is
June 16, 1986

predatory federalism, and it will not and cannot work in this country".
Mr. Speaker, if it couldn't work in 1982, how can the present Minister of Finance, the same Member, suggest this solution in 1986? Does this make sense? Could anyone on the Government side, any Minister or Government Member rise in the House today and tell us why it wasn't co-operative federalism but predatory federalism in 1982, and today .. . what is it supposed to be? What kind of federalism is the Conservative Government going to give us with Bill C-69, Mr. Speaker? On March 24, 1982, Mr. Speaker, in the same debate on the 6 and 5 inflation reduction program, the present Minister of Finance, at the time the official Opposition finance critic, said: "Taking the action of unilaterally cutting the financing, which the Government is now proposing, and then having some discussions with the provinces, surely puts the cart before the horse. We should be reversing this procedure". And now we have the exact opposite, Mr. Speaker. He makes a decision and doesn't even talk about it.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding, I would like to quote-you have indicated I have only a few minutes left-Justice Hall's definition of illness, for which financing to the provinces is being cut by the Conservative Government in Bill C-96, and I quote:
-that the trauma of illness, the pain of surgery, the slow decline to death, are burdens enough for the human beings to bear without the added burden of medical or hospital bills penalizing the patient at the moment of vulnerability. The Canadian people determined that they should band together to pay medical bills and hospital bills when they were well and income earning. Health services were no longer items to be bought off the shelf and paid for at the checkout stand.
Nor was their price to be bargained for at the time they were sought. They were a fundamental need like education, which Canadians could meet collectively and pay through taxes.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear this definition says the exact opposite of Bill C-96, the legislation the Conservative Government wants to impose on Canadians.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, you will have noted that we have been debating Bill C-96 in the House for approximately two hours. As you also know, many other hours have preceded today's debate in respect of the Bill. However, during the course of the two-hour period today, we have not heard from one Conservative Member of Parliament, either to make a speech or to ask questions. For example, I note in the House the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway), the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour), the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins), the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse), and the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees). We are not hearing from them today in respect of this Bill, not even a whimper.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
I have a question for my hon. friend and colleague who delivered one of the finest speeches I have heard him give in the House. Why is it that Conservative Members of Parliament are not standing to defend this particular piece of legislation? Is it because this regressive piece of legislation is indefensible, in that they cannot rise in the House and justify it, or is it because they do not care? I cannot believe for a moment that it is because they do not care, but indeed it is strange that we have silence on the Conservative side of the House.
Canadians have memories which go back a few years. They recall quite specifically when Members opposite would rise and criticize the previous Government in respect of these two particular issues. Where are those voices today, I would ask my friend. Did the Member for York East stand up in caucus and outline to his colleagues, specifically the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), the impact the cut-backs would have in the Province of Ontario? Did the Minister of Communications stand up in Cabinet to point out to his colleague, the Minister of Finance, and his other cabinet colleagues the devastating impact the cut-backs would have in his own Province of Quebec? And the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East, did he, as the Parliamentary Secretary, stand up at caucus and tell his colleagues what negative impact there would be in his home Province of Nova Scotia? Then there is the Hon. Member for Capilano who sits opposite and prides herself in speaking out in a very vigorous and aggressive fashion in the House of Commons. Did she stand up in caucus and tell her colleagues what impact Bill C-96 would have in the Province of British Columbia, her province and my province of birth? Did she stand up for the people of her riding of Capilano and for all the people in British Columbia? Did she speak out in favour of post-secondary education? Did the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona stand up in caucus and speak out against Bill C-96? Did he speak up for his constituents, not only in his riding but for all the people in Edmonton and in the Province of Alberta?
Given the silence today, it appears that the Conservative Members nave not spoken out for their respective constituencies or for their respective provinces. They are allowing the Minister of Finance to wreak havoc in their constituencies. I ask them through you, Mr. Speaker, to speak out. They were elected to represent constituencies and provinces.
Those Members should stand up and tell the people of Canada why as Conservative Members of Parliament they support Bill C-96. They should have the courage to stand up and tell the people of Canada and their constituents why they do not support Bill C-96.
My question to my friend and colleague is, why are Conservative Members opposite not standing up to ask questions or expressing their concerns about this legislation? I know the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), who is presently preparing his submission, intends to

June 16, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
speak out and has spoken out on a number of occasions in favour of his constituents. Is it any wonder that he is such a popular Member of Parliament in his own area because he has the courage to stand up and speak? Why are Conservative Members opposite so silent?


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for asking me his question. I was trying during my speech to find why when Conservative Members were in opposition they were saying the exact opposite to what this Bill will do now. I have quotations of what Members said in opposition in 1982 other than the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) whom I quoted before. Let me now quote what the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) said in 1982 during the debate on the six and five:

"Perhaps these repercussions are not immediately obvious to the federal Government, but they are to thousands of postsecondary students and certain people who teach in our community colleges and universities. In fact they are alarming. The Government is quite prepared to compromise the future of young people and that of other people who are working now but who would need training or recycling courses. What became obvious to me this morning when I listened to the Minister's speech is that the Government has lost sight of reality and does not seem to be aware of the growing crisis in Canadian post-secondary institutions. She does not seem to know what is going on".
This can be found on page 824 of Hansard and these remarks were made by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I can go on quoting another Member, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn): "These particular programs, health care and education, are within the provincial sphere. To wind up saying somehow, somewhere along the line, in order to solve an inflation problem you can go ahead and rip apart that agreement without any justification whatsoever, and then rip apart that agreement a year and a half after you start your alleged six and five program to solve an inflation problem you already declare has been solved, is such balderdash to come from a Minister that the Minister himself should resign for even saying it." This appears on page 816, Mr. Speaker. There was no reason to change these agreements at the time, but today hardly 20 months after the election, after promising they would co-operate and consult with the provinces, they completely forgot the consultation process and the arrangements with the provinces and introduced Bill C-96 so that the provinces will lose $8 billion over five years.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: What effect will this have on provincial Governments in Canada? All the provinces will receive less as time goes on and they will have to make that up through additional taxation. However, the federal Government has already imposed some of the highest taxes ever paid in Canada by small businesses and individuals. The provinces are left with very little room in which to manoeuver and impose more taxation to make up for the funds which the Federal Government has decided not to pass on in the traditional spirit of federal-provincial cooperation.
The Government promised to do so much for Canadians and to turn Government in Canada into one great paradise. The Government made 338 promises, but it did not promise to do this. As well as breaking promises which it made, the Government is doing things it promised not to do. Perhaps in future political campaigns we should consider the Conservative platform to be those things which it says it will not do. Through Bill C-96 the Government is passing the buck to the provinces. My own Province of Ontario is being passed the buck to the tune of nearly $3 billion.
The provinces will now have to consider how much money they can afford to pass on to the municipalities. Every provincial Government will have to consider its financial status as a result of this Bill. The provinces are responsible for looking after their own municipal affairs. Where will the municipalities get their funds if not from the provinces? There are two choices. Services which affect the every day lives of Canadians can be cut back at the municipal level or municipal taxes can be increased. That will affect every Canadian at the local level.
Bill C-96, which cuts back on the established programs funding, will affect the livelihood of every Canadian through the federal Government, the provincial Governments, and the municipalities. Greater pressures will come to bear on local aldermen, municipal councillors, reeves, mayors and so on. They will have to bite the bullet because the federal Government has let the provinces down. The provinces have very little room in which to increase taxes because the Minister of Finance has already taxed small businesses and individuals to the extent they can afford it, and often further than that.
The worst thing that a political Party can do during an election campaign is to make a whole lot of promises which it knows it cannot keep. The second worst thing it can do is to do things it promised it would not do. Quite often the things they say they will not do affect the public far more than the things they promise to do. A candid observer would have to agree that the Minister of Finance made the biggest flip-flop in his policy thinking of any member of the Government. That is obviously why he qualifies to be Minister of Finance in the Government.
Here is another statement the Minister of Finance made in the House of Commons on March 24, 1982. He said:
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
Taking the action of unilaterally cutting the financing, which the government is now proposing, and then having some discussions with the provinces, surely puts the cart before the horse. We should be reversing this procedure.
The Minister used the word "reversing". When we look at Bill C-96, which is taking billions of dollars in transfer payments away from the provinces, we can only say that he has forgotten his reverse gear. He is going ahead in the opposite direction. He is taxing all Canadians to the hilt and at the same time cutting back on transfer payments.
This action will also affect transportation facilities in Canada. The provinces and municipalities will have fewer dollars to spend on those important facilities for their constituents.
Medicare is going to become more and more important as time goes by because we are going to have a larger number of elderly Canadians in proportion to the rest of the population.
Dealing with post-secondary education, not only young people are going to university today. Many people in their twenties, thirties and older are going back to university. This means the number of people attending university has increased considerably. These people have seen the need for a higher and possibly more specialized education. Therefore, the Bill will affect people of all ages in post-secondary education.
As well, the federal Government promised a 6 per cent real increase in defence spending. It was going to honour commitments to NATO. Yet we have seen in the Budgets of the Minister of Finance as well as his Economic Statement of November, 1984, that there is no intention to keep the commitment to NATO because the Government will be unable to meet a 3 per cent annual increase in real defence spending over the life of this Parliament. Yet Members opposite campaigned on a 6 per cent real increase.
The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen) had a committee roving around visiting DND bases and looking into the educational system for dependants of military personnel. The Government wants to cut back on expenditures there as well. In certain areas, where the Government feels a school for military dependants is not justified or it simply wants to cut spending, it will transfer those dependants to a civilian school. This is again shifting the responsibility from the federal level to the local municipality. That municipality is also, of course, financed to a large extent by the provincial Government concerned. I have been getting letters from parents of these children in Shilo, Manitoba, as well as from civilian personnel, who are really concerned about what is happening to their school system. They have been asked to send their children to another school several kilometres away. I think that is inhuman and unnecessary, particularly at a time when transportation and educational costs are so high.
What about housing for senior citizens? What is the budget of CMHC like today for joint financing with the provinces of those facilities? How much money will Ontario have in this area when the federal Government is cutting transfer payments to Ontario by $3 billion over the next six years? This is

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
another very good example of the federal Government passing the buck.
* I sent a letter to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) on August 1, 1985. It takes a long time to think up answers over there because she still has not replied to say whether or not she will meet with a local committee of merchants and professionals and municipal politicians who are concerned about their communities of Chalk River and Deep River. The Minister plays it safe. She leaves the letter in her office unanswered. However, as long as it stays there she is not going to be allowed to forget it.
The Government expects everybody else to squeeze their budgets and carry a bigger share of what should be a federal responsibility. Yet at the same time the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of National Defence have no qualms whatsoever about spending $40,000 of taxpayers' money to make a movie of the Prime Minister, and use a DND aircraft to do it. If the Government continues to go on in this way, if it continues to spend thousands in this way and expects other people to cut back and pay higher taxes, I suggest that the Prime Minister and his friend Ronald Reagan are going to have lots of time to produce a real movie after 1988. In light of what has been going on lately in U.S.-Canada relations, perhaps the Prime Minister would like to call the first movie "Double Cross".
This is retrograde legislation. It is certainly not in keeping with co-operative federalism. It will lead to real problems in provincial and municipal financing and affect the individual lives of every Canadian from one end of this country to the other.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments.


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for his excellent remarks in the House this afternoon. Obviously the people of Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke are very well served by the Hon. Member. We can now understand why he is re-elected election after election. I am sure that the people of his riding must be very proud of their Member.
I want to ask him about Tory promises. I know that you, Mr. Speaker, are familiar with the book of 338 Tory promises because I think I may have raised it in the House once or twice previously. The book of 338 Tory promises, which incidentally is available to anyone who writes to me and asks for a free copy, postage free, has in it on page 15 promise number 7. The Tories said during the election campaign, and of course they said many other things; that they would recognize the legitimate role and jurisdiction of the provinces in economic and social policy issues.
They also said, in promise number 10, that they were to govern through consensus building rather than through confrontation. Those are only two of the 338 Tory promises.
June 16, 1986
In my view, and I want to ask my colleague's opinion, these two promises have very, very clearly been breached by Bill C-96 which, of course, is highly confrontational. There was no dialogue at all between the provinces and the federal Government. I want to ask him particularly if he agrees with me that promise number 7 has very clearly been breached as well. The recognition of that role the the province has in terms of social policy can only be achieved with the proper instruments, the proper instrument in this case being the funding that the provinces need to get. I want to ask my honourable colleague if he agrees with me that there has been a breach of at least two promises in this Bill alone.
I have given a very quick look to these promises, and it appears to me that at the rate that the Government is delivering on some of the promises here it will take until the year 2026 before all 338 promises are fulfilled. I wonder if the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins) could tell us here today if he thinks the voters of his riding, who, undoubtedly, like the voters of my riding and yours, Mr. Speaker, were subjected to listening to this litany of promises, thought that it would take that long for them to be realized?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, during the course of my speech I dealt very succinctly with the confidence building measure that my honourable colleague from Glengarry-Prescott- Russell talked about. He also talked about the attitude of cooperation and federal co-operativeness. I would say to him that this Bill absolutely destroys, as I said in my speech, not only the credibility of the Minister of Finance, but certainly it destroys absolutely any attempt even to bring in confidencebuilding measures from now on between the provinces of Canada and the federal Government. The Hon. Member mentioned confidence building. The thing that a Government must have, and certainly the thing that a Minister of Finance must have, is credibility with the people of Canada.
How can the present Finance Minister stand up over here in opposition in 1982 and say what a terrible thing it is to cut back on transfers of payments to the provinces of Canada, that it is predatory federalism-that is what he called it-and then turn around and when in power do the very thing he thought was so terrible when he sat in opposition? That is not a confidence building measure.
I would also say to my hon. friend from Glengarry- Prescott-Russell, in answer to his question about whether or not the Conservative promise of social policy measures is being breached by this Bill C-96; well, of course, it is being breached.
Social policy depends, as he said, upon the proper instruments. The practical people of this world-and I am speaking of people other, obviously, than this Conservative Government-realize that you can only keep promises in the social policy areas of Government by using, as he put it, the proper instruments. The proper instruments are dollars and cents. The Government will come back and say it does not have the dollars and cents, it must pay off the deficit. If that is the
June 16, 1986

Government's answer now, and I say this to the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), if that is the Government's excuse then why did the Tories make the promise in the first place?
The Hon. Members are standing up in this House and saying that they did not know what the situation was before they got into power. Can they not read? Have they been so neglectful of the parliamentary scene in the years leading up to their election that they never bothered reading a budget paper, that they never bothered to find out that there was a deep recession in 1981 and 1982 when the Liberal Government of the day did not let down the little people of this country? The Liberal Government did not let down the middle class of this country, but it kept programs in place to ease them over those very difficult periods. That added greatly to the deficit, but it added to the deficit for a good cause because it was looking after individual Canadians who were in serious trouble at that time.
So the Canadian people are just fed up with Ministers in this Government getting up and talking about how the Hon. Members did not know that the situation was as it was, and that there was such a deficit and so on. That is a lot of malarkey. Anyone who can read will know what the figures have been over the last years. Those were tough years for Canadians in the early eighties. The Liberal Government of the day stood up and did the responsible thing by looking after the average Canadian the best that the federal Government could. We certainly did not rob the provinces of Canada of billions of dollars that would prevent the provinces from delivering their services to people at the provincial level under provincial jurisdiction.
I want to thank my hon. friend for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell for asking those very succinct questions. He has spent some time in the Ontario Legislature and he is well aware of the importance of these. He, like I, have spent some time on municipal councils before coming to the House of Commons as well, so we know how this is going to affect municipal councils and municipal Governments all over Canada. There is no sense in denying it.
In areas of social policy I would say to my hon. friend that the first area of social policy we should be dealing with is educating this Cabinet of the day, that front bench of empty volcanoes over there. We should be educating them as to what social policy is all about, how they must react to Canadians, and how they must stop making movies of the Prime Minister of Canada if they want Canadians to have any confidence in them at all. In fact, the Government has gone so far that its confidence building measures are useless. As I said, the Prime Minister of Canada and the present President of the United States will have all kinds of time to make a movie of each other after 1988.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act [Translation)


Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose that the time provided for questions and comments is now over. Is it?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes.


David Berger: And I believe we are at the stage for speeches-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes.


David Berger: -not exceeding twenty minutes. Right?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Right.


David Berger: Good.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the best way to begin my remarks today would be to relate to you a conversation which I had a few weeks ago with some 40 or 50 young people in Montreal, where I was saying that nothing interests young people more than the future. But when politicians, men and women, talk about the future of a country, Mr. Speaker, it is not their own future which is at stake, but that of young people.
And I was asking these young people: How does one prepare for one's future? What do most parents wants their children to do? What have young people done? What do they do to prepare their future?
In my case and in the case of several immigrant families I know, Mr. Speaker, children prepare their future by attending school.
Education is a sort of passport to success. We have heard said many times that Canada's wealth was based on its natural resources. Today, human resources are a country's greated wealth.
As I was saying to these young people, as long as people continue to fall in love, they will continue to an inexhaustible resource. But love is not enough. It is not everything. We have to develop this resource; otherwise, our future would be grim indeed. Which brought me to the subject of education.
In the world today, Mr. Speaker, success is assured to countries with an educated population. Young Canadians are the future of this country.
Do we have the best system of education in Canada? Are we preparing our youth to take on the international competition that we hear about every day? When I was a teenager, I had the opportunity to spend a year studying abroad. I had a certain pride, as a Canadian, that everything we had in Canada was a bit better than in other countries. Today, I am not so sure.
Let us look at some of the problems that have been posed in the House during the debate on Bill C-96. Once again, the brain drain is becoming a serious problem in Canada.

June 16, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
Several weeks ago, before the parliamentary Committee on Research, Science and Technology, representatives of the University of Waterloo told us that they were losing an increasing number of teachers. For example, the Dean of the Faculty of Mathematics, which is the largest faculty of mathematics of any university in the world, left last fall for the University of Tennessee, not even Harvard, Yale or Princeton. He blamed his departure on the deplorable research climate in Canada. He said that he had had enough of undertaking a monumental battle every time he needed a new piece of equipment, no matter how small.

Just recently, Mr. Speaker, a distinguished chemist from the University of Waterloo, Professor Giacinto Scoles, for one, announced he was going to Princeton University. While looking forward to a change in his career, Professor Scoles would have preferred staying in Canada. But no Canadian institution would offer him even a tenth of the grants he will be receiving at Princeton for purchasing the laser equipment he needs for his work.
Last winter, Mr. Speaker, I received a letter from a mother who was concerned with her son's future. I am quoting from that letter:
My son will be terminating post-graduate studies in physical chemistry in November 1986, and then there is a big question mark. He has been looking for a job for next November, but wherever he goes he gets the same answer: "No job, because we have no funding."
Since he went to University in November 1985, three young chemistry researchers whom he met there have left Canada for the United States.
If my son does not find work in Ontario or Quebec, or anywhere else in Canada, he will have no choice. And this would mean that both my sons will have to live in the United States because Canada is not looking after its young scientists.
That mother's case is not the only one-there are so many others, Mr. Speaker.

In other countries there is an understanding that one must invest in education. I use the word "invest" advisedly because we hear members of the Government talk about the deficit and the need to cut spending, and I sometimes wonder whether there is anyone in the Government who understands the difference between investing and spending money. What is a more logical investment than that in education and in the youth of our country?
I have an advertisement from the State of California which appeared in a recent issue of The Economist magazine. It highlights the fact that the Californians put more money into their public education system, including grammar schools, high schools, universities and post-graduate schools, than any other state. The advertisement reads: "We will spend $21.6 billion this year. That is a 35 per cent increase over three years ago".
There is an article in a recent edition of Time magazine on the State of Massachusetts, pointing to the low rate of 4 per cent unemployment in that state, and demonstrating clearly
the importance of the universities in the Boston area to the economic development of that state and its low rate of unemployment.
I have other examples from other countries. There is an advertisement from Northern Ireland in a recent issue of The Economist magazine. It states: "Industry can benefit from Northern Ireland's outstanding R & D support." It states that Queen's University, Belfast, and the University of Ulster turn out many highly qualified graduates and work closely with industry in fields like robotics, industrial automation, computer-assisted design, and computer-assisted manufacturing, among others. We know Belfast for other reasons, but its prominence in the area of education and high quality graduate students is perhaps less well known.
East Kilbride in Scotland placed an advertisement in the magazine which points out that Scotland's five most prestigious universities are within an hour's drive, providing an enviable pool of graduate labour and research and development facilities.
[ Translation]
To return to Canada, Mr. Speaker, let us look at what is happening under this Progressive Conservative Government. What does the Government do to address the situation in Canada? Indeed, it has done everything to make the situation more disastrous. This Progressive Conservative Government, as we very well know, wants to slash $8 billion from health and post-secondary education funding over the next five years. This is a lot of money for our universities and colleges, already facing serious financial problems.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, university and .ollege funding increased by only 2.5 per cent in actual terms since 1977-78, while the number of students has sky rocketed, with increases of 27 per cent in universities, and 36 per cent in colleges.
Because of the national interest in post-secondary education, the Liberal Government had created a commission to study this issue.
The Johnson Commission recommended that federal transfers for post-secondary education increase at the same rate as the operational grants paid by the provinces to the universities and colleges. The commission wanted to encourage the provinces to increase their contributions to education at the same rate as the federal Government, but the Conservative Government has rejected the conclusions of the commission. It has decided to reduce federal expenditures and to cut back provincial transfers. That is all.
Let us see what the Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard) said in February:
The provinces receive money from the federal Government, but it is up to them-
-up to the provinces-
-to allocate this money according to their priorities.
The federal Government has no say. The provinces must decide how to allocate the money they receive for education.
June 16, 1986

However, with the Conservative Government, we are used to reversals. In April, only two months after this first statement, Mr. Bouchard had changed his mind, and I now quote from an interview he gave to the newspaper La Presse in which he said:
The federal Government has a role to play in education which is more important than simply providing money to the provinces without checking where this money goes-
It now seems that the federal Government has something to say. However, Mr. Bouchard is still not willing to take his responsibilities. He said the following:
Faced with the increasing complaints of students, rectors, college and university professors-on some days, he thinks he might lose patience-if Prime Minister Mulroney agreed, he would initiate a lively debate with the provinces which could cause frictions.
Here, Mr. Speaker, we have a good example of leadership of the kind our Prime Minister likes. Peace at all costs. The future of Canadians and our young people is being mortgaged, but it does not matter as long as there is no conflict. This is easy to achieve. We just have to give everything and ask for nothing in return. There, Mr. Speaker, is the Conservative education policy: no national objective, nothing to say about the national interest, nothing to say about strategic research, nothing to say about the need to develop a strategic manpower, no questions asked. At the same time, the students are asking for grants and low interest loans to continue their studies, but this does not really concern this Government. It does not really concern our Prime Minister. As we saw in the Stevens affair, Mr. Speaker, this Government has other priorities.
Come to think of it, education should be the only area where an interest-free loan makes money. I see things very differently. The future of our country will be determined by our population, by our people.
Education is the key to economic development. We must invest in education in all its shapes and forms. I am speaking not only about university education, college education, postsecondary education, but also lifelong education, adult education. Several years ago, the task force on skill development leave recommended that all workers have a legislated right to paid educational leave for which they could earn time off from work for purposes of training, or upgrading their skills. This educational leave could be accumulated, and suggestions have been made that such leave could be accumulated at the rate of one day of leave for every 30 days worked, so that after 10 years in the labour force, a person would perhaps have accumulted a year of educational leave. University professors have sabbaticals. Why not all workers?

In Quebec, the Jean Commission which has addressed the issue of adult education has found out that in spite of the benefits of educational reform, and today we cannot deny the fact that all children from 5 to 15 years of age are attending
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
primary school and high school, that many problems still exist, such as failures, drop-outs and maladjustment. The democratization of education, Mr. Speaker, has frequently been more beneficial to middle and upper clases than to the lower classes.
And to solve those problems, the Jean Commission made several recommendations and I will mention the following one today: That any adult be guaranteed the equivalent of 13 years of schooling acquired in the class-room or elsewhere in the usual manner or otherwise.
Mr. Speaker, the idea is to provide all adults with the opportunity of completing their schooling in terms of the present needs of the labour market. If someone decides to quit school in Grade 10 or 9, that person could complete his or her thirteen years of training, the four of five years he or she has missed, a little later either at 25 or 30 years of age. And the governments have a role to play in helping people attain their full capabilities through education, by providing them with the necessary income while he is studying and allowing them to attend the courses in which they are interested either on the job or in an educational institution.

Mr. Speaker, the national interest in education is evident. [Translation]
National interest is self-evident to everyone except to this Governement. Any self-respecting national government must have a concern for it. But with this Government, all we have is set-backs. What we have is a Government that washes its hands of post-secondary education, and we have seen very little initiative in the area of adult education.
In conclusion, I suggest that this nation perhaps did not realize the stakes, because of our abundant national resources. Some people even suggest the curse of our national resources, Mr. Speaker-

I have recently heard people who speak of the curse of our wealthy natural resources. Other countries have not had such plentiful natural resources and have had to learn about the need to invest in human resources. The Japanese are perhaps the best example.

If our elders, Mr. Speaker, and I would conclude on that, were unable to identify the situation, if some awareness is to be gained, the young are well placed to start the process. They are in school, they know about over-populated classrooms, they have to work with obsolete equipment.
There are two things that the young must do in this country: First, get the best possible education, and second, speak loud enough so that governments will provide the kind of education that will provide for tomorrow's needs.

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata).


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) for his submissions this afternoon. I know from my association with the Hon. Member that he is very troubled by Bill C-96, given his very sincere concerns, specifically with regard to post-secondary education. He has spoken out eloquently and with considerable passion on many occasions in terms of maintaining and enhancing the level and quality of education throughout Canada. One hopes that Members opposite share in the concerns raised by the Hon. Member, or that they at least recognize the impact that Bill C-96 will have on postsecondary education in Canada. It is obvious, or at least it appears obvious, given the method by which this legislation was introduced in the House, that there was very little forethought given to its impact.
As my hon. friend has pointed out, through this legislation the Government intends to cut $8 billion from federal transfer payments over the course of the next five years. It is obvious that the Government is motivated by its paranoia with respect to the deficit. We all recognize that the deficit is something that should be dealt with and, indeed, that it is a serious problem. However, we on this side of the House have always maintained that if the goal of the Government is to reduce the deficit then it must be done in a fair and equitable way. It must be done in a way that does not affect some very basic and fundamental institutions or values in our society. Therefore I ask the Hon. Member whether he agrees with me when I say that the Government must certainly lead by example. Second, does he agree when I say that it must not try to reduce the deficit on the backs of the disadvantaged?
With respect to the first point, I would like to ask him whether he considers it leading by example when the federal Government, through Bill C-96, intends to cut back on federal financing for post-secondary education to the tune of $8 billion. Is that fair when, on the other hand, Conservative cabinet Ministers spent 53 per cent more on the personal political staff last year as compared to what the Liberals spent when they were in government in the last full year of their mandate? Does the Hon. Member feel that that is leading by example? Does he feel that there is fairness or equity when on the one hand cabinet Ministers are increasing their own personal budgets for their staffs while on the other they are asking the provincial Governments to cut back in the crucial area of post-secondary education and health care?


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his comments. He asks whether the Government is leading by
DEBATES________________________June 16, 1986
example. The only place it is leading us is to great public cynicism-

increasing disappointment at this Government's actions, as opposed to the promises that were conveyed during the last elections, and for quite some time before that.

For two days last week I attended a national forum on science and technology policy in Winnipeg. Earlier today I heard the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) talk about his feelings following that forum. It was an astounding experience. For two days the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle) repeatedly said that we do not have any money for increased spending on research in science. He said that throwing money at the problem is not an answer to it. He said that we have to spend better and spend smarter. He used all the catch phrases. However, the consensus of the people from all across Canada at that meeting was that we have to spend more money on research in science and technology. After this Academy award-winning performance by the Minister in Winnipeg, what did we come back to in Ottawa? What do we see? We see that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is building a couple of airports in his riding, or that he is having installed at airports sophisticated instrument landing equipment which will cost several million dollars. These are airports at which such expenditures cannot be justified on the basis of any rational criteria. If one looks at the reports concerning this matter on- will see that there are other airports in the country which are far more deserving of federal funds.
Another example, after the poor mouthing that we heard in Winnipeg for several days, was with respect to news reports concerning the Prime Minister taking with him a Department of Transport plane equipped with sophisticated video equipment to ensure that his every move would be recorded for posterity. How can we call that leadership by example when at the same time funding for education is being cut?
The problem is fundamental. Representatives from the University of Waterloo who appeared before our committee two weeks ago told us that for every dollar the university receives for the support of the basic educational system for teaching students their basic roles it would receive $1.50 were it located 200 miles to the south. For every dollar the university receives for research it would receive $2.50 if it were located 200 miles to the south. On that basis alone I cannot for the life of me figure out how our universities can compete with American universities. The only answer I have come up with is that in a free trade agreement we should get the Americans to finance our universities.
June 16, 1986



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21	DISASTERS


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) introduced new pornography legislation. We in the Liberal Opposition applauded the Government with respect to the amendments to the Criminal Code that deal with child pornography and child abuse. We very strongly believe that there is no penalty harsh enough to deal with the degenerates in society who would use children for pornographic purposes. As well, we expressed very deep concern about the Minister's attempt to strap a giant chastity belt over Canadian sexuality with the vague and broad definition of pornography in the legislation. According to the Minister of Justice pornography is any visual depiction of any sexual matter. That could include kissing, and we believe-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please, sixty seconds.



MEDICAL CARE


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Medical Association has asked doctors across the country not to honour the health insurance cards of Ontario residents who visit other provinces. This is to be done by doctors to help their colleagues in Ontario maintain their privileged position in the face of legislation to ban extra billing.
The CMA is suggesting that doctors in other provinces increase the distress of Ontario residents seeking medical care by forcing them to pay directly for that care and to seek reimbusement from the Ontario Health Insurance Plan. This would mean that Ontario residents would be treated as if they were visiting a foreign country. It threatens the universal accessibility of medical care for all Canadians, and it is also in contravention of the Canada Health Act which specifies that when a Canadian visits another province and requires medical services there, those services are to be paid for by the medical plan of the home province.
The CMA wants doctors across the country to ignore this law. This is an illegitimate use of doctors' powers and I call on the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) to enforce the Canada Health Act.



FORTHCOMING ANNIVERSARY OF AIR INDIA CRASH OFF COAST OF IRELAND

Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, a week today on June 23 we will mark the first anniversary of the tragic crash off the coast of Ireland of Air India Flight 182. The official cause of that crash is yet to be determined but 329 men, women and children lost their lives in that disaster.
Because it was an Air India flight and because most of the passengers had their origins in India, some feel that this was an East Indian tragedy. However, 80 per cent of the victims were Canadians and this was a Canadian disaster.
The sympathy and hearts of all Canadians have gone out to the families and friends of the victims. However, tears are not enough. We must mark this anniversary by rededicating ourselves to the principles on which Canada is based: hard work, equality of opportunity for all, love of God, compassion for others, and racial tolerance, principles so well exemplified by Canadians of East Indian origin.



IMPORTANCE OF CHRISTMAS TREE EXPORTS TO NOVA SCOTIA

Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to emphasize the importance of the Christmas tree industry to Nova Scotia. Over the past decade Christmas tree growers have developed a fine product which has penetrated the United States market-place. Today the number of trees exported from Nova Scotia is 1.8 million, with a dollar value of $22 million. Nova Scotia exports 67 per cent of the Canadian trees entering the United States.
As Nova Scotians expanded their U.S. market, they foresaw the possibility of U.S. protectionism leading to tariffs on Canadian trees. Therefore they have refused to accept assistance that might be construed as a subsidy.
These growers are leaders in addressing the U.S. concern about unfair competition. They have educated their U.S. counterparts in an effort to minimize concern about unfair competition from Canada. As a result, U.S. and Canadian growers have a relationship of mutual respect and acceptance.
These growers recognize the need for Canada to fight protectionism in the U.S. They do, however, want government officials to be fully aware of their success in dealing with protectionism. They would welcome an opportunity discuss to further discuss the possible implications-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.
14444

June 16, 1986



FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, for as long as the Conservative Government has been in office, we have heard about the priority it attaches to reforming the legislation regulating financial institutions. However, we have seen almost no action, despite the failure of two banks and the incidents of large-scale takeovers involving financial institutions.
There have been studies upon studies and a very thorough consultation process, but we have yet to see comprehensive proposals for reform. The Government brought forward two minor and inadequate Bills, one of which is still languishing on the Order Paper. Other Bills were brought forward expressly to deal with regrettable situations which developed simply because there was no legislation in place to prevent them.
I am sure Members on all sides of the House would join with me in calling upon the Government to take a leadership role in the reform of financial institutions rather than continue to run the risk of being overtaken by events.



MEDICAL CARE


Mr. W. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, a serious problem has arisen in Ontario caused by extra billing. The most seriously ill cancer patients, whose major or only hope for recovery is chemotherapy using hyperthermia, are faced with a choice between having the required potentially life-saving treatment immediately at a clinic and paying for both the drugs and the clinic fees themselves, or waiting in a long queue to receive treatment at a hospital with all expenses covered by OHIP.
It was the fear of two-tier medicine developing in Canada, as it has in Britain, with one standard for the rich and another for the poor, which led to amendments to the Canada Health Act respecting extra billing. I am extremely angered that the Ontario Liberal Government itself has in effect introduced government extra billing into Canada through the back door by designing OHIP to cover hyperthermia cancer treatment only if it is performed in a hospital but not if the same treatment is performed in a clinic.
The Liberal Government of Ontario should not introduce two-tier medical treatment into Canada on the backs of the most seriously ill cancer patients.



SHIPBUILDING


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to comment upon the Government's ill-conceived and cruel public relations stunt in refusing to live up to its promises to the Canadian shipbuilding industry and award a contract for the construction of a Polar 8 icebreaker. We all remember the former Liberal Government and its promise to build an Arctic icebreaker following the voyage of the Manhattan through the Northwest Passage, but nothing was ever done.
Just last year the Americans once again penetrated the Northwest Passage without permission. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) responded to this American expedition by announcing that the Government would proceed immediately with a $400 million Polar 8 icebreaker project. Like the Liberals, the Tories are all talk and no action. If the Government waits much longer, it will single-handedly eliminate the Canadian shipbuilding and ship repair industry.
The Canadian shipbuilding industry is facing its worst crisis in 50 years. There are fears that employment will drop to below 5,000 people nationally by the end of 1986. Now there is a 50 per cent unemployment rate in the B.C. industry, and this will rise to 80 per cent if the Polar 8 project does not proceed in B.C. yards. B.C. yards had the lowest bid and possessed the greatest icebreaking-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.



AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, indeed it is welcome news that General Motors and Suzuki have announced that they will be opening a new plant in Ontario for the production of automobiles. This will mean a positive upswing to the economy of the community chosen.
In my riding of Grey-Simcoe, wages and salaries are not commensurate with those paid in many other parts of the province, and unemployment is rife. The Collingwood shipyards, once the largest industry, have reduced their work force from a high of 1,100 to 200. Other industries have closed or have drastically diminished their workforces. In our tourist sector, the majority of workers receive only the provincial minimum wage. The possible location of the auto plant in the riding would be welcome news indeed.
Such a decision would be assured of the greatest cooperation possible by all officials and the people, working together to ensure the highest productivity and to ensure that all employees take advantage of the natural recreational facilities for which we are famous. This re-emphasizes the fact
June 16, 1986

that the non-polluted southern Georgian Bay area is one of the best in Ontario within which to work and to raise a family, and for recreational enjoyment and participation.



HISTORIC EVENTS


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, several communities across the country marked June 14 as Baltic Holocaust Day because that day sadly marks the first dreadful night 45 years ago when over 600,000 citizens of the three Baltic States were forcibly removed to Russian slave labour camps. The survivor rate was pathetic. A commital to a Soviet Gulag prison camp was but a slow walking death sentence.
The Baltic holocaust is well recorded in history, but it did not stop there. The Russification of those three once proud and free democratic states goes on to today, even if it is in more subtle ways.
Lenin once said: "These people have the right to selfdetermination". He recognized them as sovereign and independent states. Why does modern Russia not respect its own Constitution and its signature on the Helsinki Accords, and let the captive nations go free?



DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION


Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) is laying off about 11 employees involved in job creation in the province of Newfoundland.
I have two points to make. The first is that the situation is being addressed in a shameful way. One employee received a note today that he has two weeks' notice. He is a 44-year old man who has served the Department for three years and has a child in university. He does not know what will happen to him at the end of the two weeks. It is the manner in which it was done. Second, employees are being laid off, such as that man, who administer a budget of about $1.5 million, with hundreds of ongoing projects in a province with the highest unemployment rate in Canada.
I say two things to the Minister. For God's sake, let us create jobs in Newfoundland and let us hold on to those employees. Second, let us do it in a proper way.



RIANT AND ARGUTE PAGE STAFF

Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, the 1985-86 Pages in the House of Commons equal or excel the high standard of service set by their predecessors. They are a happy, dedicated, smiling, sincere, devoted, loyal, punctual, blissful, felicitous, lighhearted, blithe, jocund, mirthful, riant and gleeful group.
This courageous, dauntless, resolute, sagacious, wise, gnostic, sophic, astute, knowledgeable, shrewd, argute group of forty have helped, aided, secured, succored, alleviated, assuaged and supported the Members of Parliament. When a Member took sick a Page was the first there to assist. And on the ice their speed, peppery, swift, racy, spicy, zesty, back-checking, front-checking, side-checking and diversions defeated the MPs for the first time in recent history.
They came as youth. They leave as men and women with a greater knowledge and love for our great country. With young people like these Pages, we do not have to worry about a glorious future for Canada.
Viva the Pages!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



CHALLENGE '86 CALL FOR PROGRAM MONITORING

Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, there is considerable concern across the country about the quality of training which Challenge '86 is providing. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) spends a considerable amount of time telling us about how much money she is spending. It would be good to know that the money is being well spent.
I call upon the Minister to institute a monitoring program which would assure us that clients are getting the kind of training which is valuable to them. At present the money is being spent, but the training results are questionable.



BILATERAL TRADE WITH THE UNITED STATES-POSITION OF LIBERALS

Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: In the Saturday, June 14 issue of the Ottawa Citizen, Mr. Speaker, we could read about

June 16, 1986
Oral Questions
the views of Mr. Michel Robert, a candidate to the presidency of the Liberal Party of Canada, who professed his confidence in our trade negotiations with the United States. Michel Robert is a member of the Macdonald Commission, the Commission of Inquiry on the Economy which also favours the enhancement of our trade with the United States.
Clearly, the Liberals do not agree at all on our trade with the Americans. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) is against. The Party Leader wants the Government to stop all negotiations. Another Quebecer, perhaps their future president, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau), the so called Quebec expert in this matter, is sometimes for, and sometimes against. Sometimes he knows, other times he doesn't know. He is not sure where he stands on the matter.
If this party is truly responsible, it will have to discipline its members and declare to the Canadian public its position on the development of bilateral trade with the United States.



CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-POSITION OF CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENCY OF LIBERAL PARTY

Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on very much the same subject. "I remain convinced that free trade with the United States is something which is valuable". These, Mr. Speaker, are the words of one Michel Robert, onetime member of the Macdonald Royal Commission who now is running, Lord only knows why, for the presidency of the Liberal Party.
It is nice to learn that at least one Liberal knows where he stands on this important issue. Most of them just waffle away in the miasma of internal division that afflicts that directionless and leaderless Party.
Welcome, Mr. Robert, to the realm of rational thought and affirmative Conservative policy.
areas, with a coastline sometimes 500 miles long, is responsible for administering up to 90 projects per individual, which is an impossible situation recognizing the great number of projects and the size of the coastline in Newfoundland.
I brought this matter personally to the attention of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald). I am hopeful that having raised this matter with her, having pointed out the realities of Newfoundland's rural life and the difficulty of getting around in that part of Canada, that this matter can be corrected soon, that my people can be well served, and that those employees who are doing such a good job will retain their ability to serve the people of Canada, and more important, the people of Newfoundland. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. On this very sombre day the whole world is stopping to pay respect to the victims of the Soweto massacre. Would the Deputy Prime Minister report on the progress which the Canadian Government is making in trying to develop more effective international action against apartheid in South Africa? Could the Deputy Prime Minister tell us if the Prime Minister was in contact with Mrs. Thatcher over the weekend urging her to change her position and provide some leadership in this area? Also, were we in contact with the Foreign Ministers in the European Economic Community who are meeting today to discuss possible sanctions? Finally, have we been in touch with other Commonwealth leaders to determine whether they are prepared to meet earlier than August to discuss this emergency situation?


DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with my colleague, the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey), in bringing to the attention of the House the situation in Newfoundland where project officers for the Job Development Program in Newfoundland are being laid off. The result of this lay-off is that each project officer in rural


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That was, in effect, four questions.


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman said that the whole world is remembering the Soweto massacre. As he knows, our Embassy in South Africa was closed today. I am informed that Canada was the only country officially represented at the memorial services in South Africa.
With respect to his questions with regard to the leadership Canada has given in this matter, the answers remain the same. The Prime Minister is taking initiatives without waiting for August, and he will continue to do so.
June 16, 1986


PROTECTION OF PRISONERS IN SOUTH AFRICAN JAILS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister another question with regard to taking initiatives. We are all shocked by the imprisonment of thousands of people in South Africa and mindful that many political prisoners have died in those jails previously. Has Canada taken the lead to have a Commonwealth commission or international commission established to visit South African jails to help protect the prisoners and ensure that they are afforded proper treatment while imprisoned there, so that their lives will not be in danger?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the initiatives which Canada has taken have been outlined by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Prime Minister. They surely do not need to be repeated. Canada has taken the lead, as has no other Government in the history of this country, in response to the South African situation in the hope that it might serve as an example which other nations will follow. However, not content to leave it at that, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said that there is a whole range of options yet available which will be used if necessary.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Government has made no statement about what it intends to do to protect the human rights of those who have been imprisoned.


CANADIAN FIRMS CONDUCTING BUSINESS IN SOUTH AFRICA
Lloyd Axworthy: I would like to ask a final supplementary question about the actions taken. The Government has said that it is prepared to impose further economic sanctions. There are Canadian firms still doing business in South Africa or investing there. Does the Government plan to put together an effective contingency plan for the ceasing of their operations in South Africa at a time when the Government decides it must take that step?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows that some initiatives have been taken in that direction already by the Government. With respect to the announcement concerning tourism advertising, we saw on television last night that one of the larger networks in the country has voluntarily complied with that measure. Yes, indeed, those initiatives are also being taken by the Government.


SPACE DEVELOPMENT
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence and is on the subject of Teale Ruby. The
Oral Questions
Minister knows that the stated Government policy is that there will be no government involvement in Star Wars. Yet knowledgeable people in the United States and Canada have said that the Government of Canada is an active participant in the development of a satellite sensor system known as Teale Ruby. Will the Minister now cease and desist any activity by the Government of Canada in this project, Teale Ruby?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the Teale Ruby project commenced in co-operation between the United States and Canada in 1980.1 believe the Hon. Member was a member of the Government which initiated that co-operation. We see no reason to cancel it now.


REQUEST THAT CANADA CANCEL PARTICIPATION
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I have here a report to Congress on the Strategic Defence Initiative which lists Teale Ruby as part of the Star Wars program. Will the Minister, now that he is the Minister acting on behalf of the Government, take his responsibilities seriously and cease this activity in Teale Ruby?


Harvie Andre: We think it is in Canada's interest, Mr. Speaker, to be up to date on the latest technology, including satellite observatation. We think there is enormous potential for good use of this technology in Canada in keeping our North under observation, tracking down airplanes, both civilian and, in the event of a war situation, military. In our view it would be rather foolish to take the move the Hon. Member is suggesting.


APARTHEID
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. As he well knows, on the 10th anniversary of the Soweto Massacre the South African Government has achieved new levels of repression. This oppression is now hidden from world view because of controls on the press. What precisely is the Government saying to the Governments of the United Kingdom, the United States and West Germany which would convince them to place the freedom of South African blacks ahead of their strategic and economic interests?


Erik Nielsen: I think there is no difference between what the hon. gentleman would say to those countries and what this Government is saying to those countries. It is just a question of the approach. We happen to believe that the more prudent approach being followed now is going to produce far more

June 16, 1986
Oral Questions
results toward the elimination of apartheid than would the approach advocated by the hon. gentleman and members of his Party.


REQUEST THAT AGRICULTURAL SANCTIONS BE IMPOSED
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister said that Canada was going to lead by example. Additional sanctions were applied last week which bespoke triviality or ineffectualness and, in some instances, are quite laughable in the eyes of those to whom they are to apply. In view of the fact the Government is supposed to be manifesting leadership, why does it not apply the agricultural sanctions which everyone recognizes are likely to be most effective if imposed by Canada, and most likely to represent a model which other nations could follow?


Erik Nielsen: I find it rather surprising that the hon. gentleman would put that view forward when those black nations which have commented on the initiatives taken by Canada lauded those initiatives. They have had nothing but good to say about those initiatives. The Eminent Persons Group has said that the lead taken by Canada serves as an example for other nations, and urges that they do so.
Again I say it is apparent that our views are no different, but the approaches obviously are. We have the conviction that we are following the most prudent and productive course that can be followed.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister says that Canada has received congratulations and respect from black nations of the world. There is one area in which Canada has failed to get plaudits. That concerns the complicity of this country with respect to the American alliance with South Africa vis-a-vis Namibia which is just as much a part-


Mr. Speaker:: Question, please.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Why has the Government not resigned from the Contact Group as a clear signal that we will not be a handmaiden of American complicity in South African oppression?


Erik Nielsen: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this Government has demonstrated very vividly and very clearly that we among nations of the world are following an independent foreign policy approach. This approach is one which even his own external affairs critic has complimented. It lies ill in his mouth to be critical of the position taken by the critic of his own Party.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-POSITION OF ALBERTA PREMIER
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister will know that the Premier of Alberta, Don Getty, is quoted in The Globe and Mail today as saying that Canada should consider suspending free trade talks with the United States until after American congressional elections this fall.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he agrees with Mr. Getty's assessment that President Reagan is unable to control Congress and therefore, presumably, he is unable to keep his commitments to the Prime Minister until after the congressional election year is over?


Hon. James Kelleher (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Hon. Member has a somewhat vivid imagination, and is reading into Mr. Getty's statement more than is there.
He said we should continue our talks at this time for several months and then make a determination as to whether or not they should continue in view of the mid-term elections.
It is our opinion that those talks must continue because they are vital to the future of this country.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AGREEMENT
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister for International Trade could tell the House whether or not it is part of the 90-day probation period that the provinces have given the federal Government, whether as part of that probation period that, 90 days down the road, if progress is not being made because of the political atmosphere in the United States these free trade talks will be suspended? Is that a condition under which the provinces at the last meeting with the federal Government agreed to provide a 90-day period for the federal Government to proceed?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, again the saga of the vivid imagination continues. There is no such 90-day period. What the Prime Minister and the Premiers agreed upon was to meet every three months to review the progress to date and to be brought up to date.
The Hon. Member from that Party is unable to recognize consultation because his Party never indulged in it when they were in power.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
June 16, 1986


CULTURE
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Communications.
Can he confirm that Mr. Reisman has requested authority to negotiate the cultural sector with Mr. Murphy, as indicated by Canadian Conference of Cultural Industries President Andre Noreau?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm this question.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ASSURANCE
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, it is comments like that and the lack of confirmation which tell us this is the first step in the sell-out that we have foreseen right from the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Steven W. Langdon: Will the Minister or his colleague, the Minister for International Trade, assure this House that our cultural industries are not going to be placed on the bargaining table, despite this demand by Mr. Reisman? Will he tell Mr. Reisman to respect that promise instead of trying to lead us Lord knows where?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I can only confirm what I said. The negotiator did not request authority to negotiate cultural industries.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Science and Technology. The Government seems to be telling Canadians that for Canada to be active in outer space we have to leave our small and medium-sized companies in a vacuum. I would like to ask the Minister why has the Government cut the Industrial Research Assistance Program which provided vital research support to small and medium-sized companies Why has the Government rejected the unanimous advice of the private sector, which can best be described in two words from the Nielsen report, namely, that IRAP works?
Oral Questions


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I applaud the Hon. Member for recognizing that IRAP is a good program and has been very helpful. Indeed, we are looking at the IRAP experience to bring to the space-related activities the same kind of expertise and government assistance that the high-tech sector has experienced as a result of that program. There are no cuts in the program. There is a realloction of priorities that the NRC has reassigned itself.


David Berger: This is an unacceptable trade-off and every person from the private sector has said so.


FUNDING OF SPACE-RELATED ACTIVITIES
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister telling us that it is the Government's policy to participate in outer space because it is fashionable and that we have to rob Peter to pay Paul? How many other programs will be cut, regardless of merit, in order to provide the Prime Minister and members of his Cabinet with photo opportunities?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, it would not matter how often the Hon. Member repeats what he believes to be the fact that there are massive cuts in the IRAP program. The IRAP program has already financed space-related activities. These activities will obviously accelerate over the next few years and the IRAP program is exceptionally suited for that kind of activity. The National Research Council, in accordance with Government priorities, has rearranged its own priorities to coincide.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Last Friday unionized workers at Cape Breton Development Corporation were driven to the desperate measure of occupying the company offices over the loss of 1,200 jobs and the refusal of both the company and the Government to take steps which will guarantee continued employment. Next spring 500 jobs will be lost when the bridges program ends. Will the Deputy Prime Minister, on behalf of the Government, give a commitment that those programs will not end and the Government will do something to preserve those jobs?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply to the Hon. Member that a task force has been established between management and representatives of the union to work out those very problems. I think that is the most appropriate course of action to follow.

June 16, 1986
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT-UNION MEETING
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. There has been a request today for officials of the Government to meet with unionized employees in the Devco operation. Will the Deputy Prime Minister give an undertaking that this will happen and the Government will make a commitment to those jobs?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is aware that union elections will take place in that area tomorrow. I think it would be inappropriate for the Government or officials of the Government to intervene at this time, particularly given the fact that we have a mechanism in place wherein these issues can be discussed and resolved and, hopefully, satisfactory solutions reached.


AGRICULTURE
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Will he confirm that ready-to-eat meat production at the strikebound Gainer's plant in Edmonton began last week in violation of a federal Government meat inspection guideline which states that: "Plant employees shall, under no circumstances, be permitted to handle ready-to-eat meat products prior to obtaining satisfactory certification on medical grounds."?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I would have appreciated it if the Hon. Member had extended the courtesy of giving me notice of this question. It would have provided me with an opportunity to check with my senior officials. My information is that we have violated no Act at that plant or any other plant.


GOVERNMENT GUIDELINES
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, why did Bill Rees, Vice-President of Operations, confirm to my office today that ready-to-eat meat production began last Wednesday, when the chief veterinarian responsible for inspection services advised my office today that the appropriate medicals were not made until Thursday, the day after meat production began, in violation of federal government guidelines?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I take this question very seriously because we have the finest meat and food inspection system in the world. It is not perfect, and officials are always striving to improve it. I have checked
with my Deputy Minister from time to time as to the progress and status of the plant at Red Deer and the Gainer's plant in Edmonton. We had some very difficult situations there from time to time, but my information at this point is that we have not violated any Act or regulation. However, I would not want that to stand as a final response to a very serious question. I will take notice and be happy to get back to the Hon. Member.


REQUEST THAT INSPECTION PROCEDURES BE STRENGTHENED
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Agriculture and concerns the same subject. In light of the fact that these scabs are inexperienced and are replacing experienced workers, will the Minister tell the House what steps he will take to ensure that the inspection procedures will be beefed up-pardon the pun-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: -to ensure that the health of the public is protected?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I take that question seriously as well, but perhaps the Hon. Member might be interested to know that it is a pork processing plant and does not process beef. Quite properly, senior officials of my Department have been in constant contact and observing the difficulties at both plants. Again the information I have is that they have overseen the operations of the plant. At no time that I am aware of, did slaughtering take place when it should not have taken place.


John R. Rodriguez: I thank the Minister for not hamming it up.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF DIRECTIVES
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister prepared to table in the House the exact procedures which his Department will use to ensure that these inexperienced scabs who are operating in that Gainer's plant are in fact following the directives of the Food Production and Inspection Branch? Will he table the procedures that his Department will undertake?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I have no difficulty in making a commitment to table that information. We have been involved in two similar situations and the Department has always been anxious to table the information. We have been held back on one account because of an injunction lodged against the Department by certain people within the industry, but if that does not happen again, and if we are not impaired in any way from making the information available, we will be happy to do so.
June 16, 1986


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. It relates to her protesting the Ontario Government's decision last week to amend securities industry legislation. Is it the position of her Government that provinces should not exercise their powers while the free trade discussions take place?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, it is the Government's position that this is a very important policy area and one in which we have taken a great leadership role in the co-ordination of policy between the federal Government and the provinces. We think that is very important to policy development in all of the areas dealing with financial sector legislation. We will continue to do that.


GOVERNMENT ACTION
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister tell the House whether her Government will take some much needed action on Financial regulation instead of being continually overtaken by events?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I do not at all feel overtaken by events. I think we have taken a real leadership role. I might remind the Hon. Member that it is we who began the discussion of a very complex area over a year ago. There was broad-based public participation and the discussion in the House, in which the Hon. Member participated. I remind her that we are still waiting to hear from Mr. Justice Estey, that we have two Bills in the House, and that we are the ones who have shown the leadership.

[ Translation\


EMPLOYMENT
Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. For some time now a number of Hon. Members have been complaining about the implementation of employment planning programs, particularly with respect to Quebec.
Can the Minister advise the House as to the extent of activities under these programs in the Province of Quebec?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Last Friday in the House, Mr. Speaker, I tabled information on employment planning.
Oral Questions
I am pleased to mention that in the Province of Quebec we now have close to 6,000 projects involving 30,000 participants. Our expenditures amount to nearly $200 million.
In Canada we have 53,000 projects under way, with more than 75,000 participants, and we will continue in that fashion.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


IMPORTATION OF COAL FROM UNITED STATES
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Kelleher), whose Government put a retaliatory tariff on books which does not seem to be doing Canada any good.
I want to ask him, given the fact that Canada imports 16 million tonnes of coal a year from the American heartland at a cost of $1 billion a year, why does his Government not put a tariff on American coal and thereby open up eastern Canadian coal markets to western Canadian coal.


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the Hon. Member that in arriving at the list of goods against which we would retaliate under the GATT rules, we are only able to retaliate against goods that are not GATT-bound. I do not know whether or not coal is in fact GATT-bound, but I would be happy to look into that matter for him and get back to him.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I hope the Minister will, because it would be of great benefit to British Columbia and Alberta if he could do this.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL TASK FORCE REPORT
Ian Gardiner Waddell: My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of State for Mines, if I can get his attention. Can the Minister advise when we will receive a copy of the report of the federal-provincial task force which was set up in January of 1985 to examine this very idea, the expanded use of Canadian coal in the Canadian market?


Hon. Bob Layton (Minister of State (Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, I know there is a report being prepared and presented to the Government regarding the use of western coal. I am sure that as soon as it is published a copy will be sent directly to the Hon. Member.

June 16, 1986
Oral Questions


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary responsible for Canada Post Corporation.
Section 15 of the Charter of Rights states:
Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law-
Why does the Minister allow Canada Post Corporation to violate Section 15 of the Charter of Rights by not delivering mail door-to-door to new residential districts?


Mr. Bill Domm (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post):: Mr. Speaker, I remind the Hon. Member that we have been delivering mail and increasing the service 16 per cent over the last three years, with increases in mail handling, and we have introduced new methods of doing it more economically. I would assure the Hon. Member that it is the intention of this Government to end up in a position where Canada Post breaks even and we stop, from the bottomless pit, pouring money into the Crown Corporation.


MAIL DELIVERY
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, why does one group of citizens get home mail delivery while another group in the same neighbourhood does not? If that isn't discrimination, what is? They are just across the street!


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, it has been the policy of Canada Post, for some years now, to continue door-to-door delivery of mail within urban areas. It has also been the policy of Canada Post, as approved by this Government, to increase the service to customers in rural areas by giving more efficient and more effective means of delivering the mail in close proximity to their residences.


BANKS AND BANKING
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. During the last election campaign our Party indicated that millions of dollars could be saved by introducing the electronic deposit of pension and salary cheques directly into banks rather than sending them out through the Post Office. Will the Minister advise the House what has happened to that commitment and
when the Government intends to begin the direct electronic depositing of cheques?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, we have undertaken, on an experimental basis, the sending of cheques to a number of our public servants. That has worked very well; and we will be commencing, very soon, a program to send cheques to all of the public servants of the Government of Canada.


RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the President of the Privy Council, in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
The Government received a report of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission with regard to the oil companies in May. It was not tabled by the Minister until last Friday, the last day when it was required. The report made a number of recommendations which involved the combines legislation which passed a week earlier. Why did the House not receive the report in May when it could have been used?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am not, as the Hon. Member will be aware, fully cognizant of all of the details with respect to the lead-up of time. The Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, of course, would operate on its own timetable with respect to the preparation and presentation of that particular report; so I do not think it is absolutely accurate to equate that with the actions of the Minister.


RECOMMENDATION DEALING WITH PETRO-CANADA
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, we understand that the Minister had it for more than a month before it was released. I would like to ask the Minister whether the Government supports the recommendation of that report which calls on Petro-Canada not to be operated like another oil company but, rather, as a company which will oppose oil industry anti-competitiveness and such practices as buying up independent gas stations, squeezing them through unfair pricing, and so on.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I will not respond directly to that question except to say I will take the question as notice and have the appropriate Minister respond to the Hon. Member, whenever that Minister returns.
June 16, 1986


PRICE OF GASOLINE
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Restrictive Trade Practices Commission has said that the Government has a unique opportunity to make a positive effect in competition and in the market-place, through Petro-Canada. Is the Government prepared to take advantage of this recommendation, or is it going to not never give Canadians a fair price for gasoline at the pumps?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what "not never give" a fair price to the public means, because this Government, unlike the previous Government, is giving fair prices for gasoline to the public.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the Government, through its twisted policies for Petro-Canada, has decreased competition. Will the Government take advantage of this unique opportunity, or will it maintain the inflatedly high price for Canadian consumers?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am loath to refer back to the enormous inflationary effect of the policy of the predecessor Government with respect to oil prices. The fact of the matter is-


Some Hon. Members:: Below world level.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -the prices have dropped, under this Government. We have in fact gone into the process of deregulation, which allows the drop in the price of oil to be passed on to the consumer.
With respect to the report of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, I will have the appropriate Minister get back to the Hon. Member with respect to our policy in that area.


MINES AND MINING
Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Mines. The sterilization of federal coal lands in Saskatchewan has long been an irritant, or a point of contention, in federal-provincial relations. Could the Minister advise what his Department is doing to free up the economic coal reserves?


Robert E.J. Layton: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond to the Hon. Member for
Oral Questions
Saskatoon East. The Governor in Council has given approval to the transfer agreement which provides for the transfer of coal rights for $500,000 to the federal Government and $9.5 million to the City of Estevan to build a new airport. This is another example of good will and co-operation between the provinces and the federal Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SEARCH AND RESCUE
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Associate Minister of National Defence. It has to do with a very sad and tragic accident which occurred in Alberta over the weekend in which eight persons were killed on a DND search and rescue mission, five of whom were civilians. Will the inquiry examine whether, in future, civilians should be allowed to undertake risks in search and rescue operations under the direction of DND?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the inquiry per se is looking to find the actual reason for this tragic crash. May I take this opportunity to express my sympathies to the families in this regard.
The Civil Air Search and Rescue Association has been in existence for a number of years. It has provided a superb service to pilots, particularly private pilots. It has flown thousands and thousands of hours with no accidents heretofore. I cannot commit that we will be undertaking that type of fundamental examination. However, clearly, there is a concern that we share. We want to do what we can to limit the liability and risks which civilians might take.


GOVERNMENT LIABILITY
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, what is the extent of the Government's liability when civilians are harmed, or indeed killed in the course of a DND directed search and rescue operation?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, it very much depends on the circumstances. At this point in time I cannot tell the Hon. Member for sure if all five of the civilians onboard were in fact part of CASARA or whether in fact they were onboard in some other capacity. Since I do not know the relationship they had with CASARA I cannot answer the Hon. Member's question precisely; but I will be glad to get back to him when I have that information.

June 16, 1986
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


SOUTHERN ONTARIO TOMATO CO-OPERATIVE PROJECT
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Last week the Ontario Vegetable Marketing Board withdrew its support for the $1.5 million grant that the Minister is giving to the Southern Ontario Tomato Co-operative for the purchase of the Topaz plant at St. Thomas. Since the support of the marketing board was one of the Minister's conditions for giving the grant is the Minister now going to withdraw the $1.5 million grant to this group?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, no, we have not reached that decision. We have worked with members of the co-op and with the provincial Government and no final decisions have been made. There have been other conditions laid down by us and by the provincial Government. However, the particular condition to which the Hon. Member refers rests more particularly, more precisely, and more appropriately with the responsibility of the provincial Government and not with the federal Government. The Vegetable Marketing Board is a creation of the province and not of the federal Government. As such, it receives its mandate from provincial legislation and not from federal legislation.


TOMATO PASTE IMPORTS
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, since the tomato paste industry is facing unfair competition with low-priced imports being shipped into Canada at about 30 per cent below the cost of production, is the Government planning to take any action to protect these hard-pressed producers?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should know that the producers or the industry have the opportunity, if they decide, to launch an investigation of injury. They might choose to launch a countervail action or an anti-dumping action. That must come from the industry and not from the Government.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the Minister aware of a letter sent from the Income Security Programs to Canada Post which states in part:
This is to confirm our recent discussions that our department will not intervene should Canada Post withdraw the letter carrier notifications service to Health and Welfare Canada.
Is the Minister aware that this move means that seniors, disabled, and families receiving family allowance will receive
their cheques late when they change their residences? Is the Minister prepared to intervene?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am not specifically aware of the letter to which the Hon. Member refers. However, I am aware of the situation. I am fully cognizant of the issue. We have found that the present system is not satisfactory. We believe we can get the same information out in other ways.


PRICE CHARGED BY CORPORATION
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, the Minister does not seem to be aware that dropping this service will mean that seniors will receive their cheques late. Rather than acquiescing in a call for a drop in service by Canada Post why does the Minister not question the $700,000 price-tag that Canada Post attaches to this service? Why not challenge Canada Post, instead of cutting off services to seniors?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of cutting off services to seniors. Nor is it a matter of challenging Canada Post. We have a responsiblity for giving information to seniors, as well as having a responsibility for being cost-effective. The same type of thing applied, for example, in April. There are a number of seniors who failed to give us an update on their last year's income, and for a period of time we did not and could not advance their GIS, for example.
There are many ways to get this information to seniors. I suggest to the Hon. Member that the methods are in place, including information which I hope he and his colleagues will give out through their constituency offices. In addition, we have senior citizens pension advisers, both in urban centres and on a casual basis in rural areas. This information can be given out in that way as well.


Cyril Keeper: This way works!


TELEVISION
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. I gave notice of the question I am about to put to him on Friday, and it concerns the TV broadcasting of the 1988 Winter Olympic Games in Calgary and the fact that television rights for the Games have been granted to CTV, which in turn has made arrangements to have TVA, a Quebec network, retransmit the signal to Quebec.
My question is: What is going to be done about getting the French signal to one million Francophones outside Quebec?
June 16, 1986


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I shall, if I may, read part of a letter I was about to send to the Hon. Member.
"Further to your letter of May 30, negotiations are now under way between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and TV A, with a view to bringing these TV broadcasts to Francophone communities outside Quebec. I will let you know the results as soon as the negotiations are completed."
I share the Hon. Member's concern, and I hope all Canadians will be able to view these broadcasts.


REQUEST FOR FRANCOPHONE REPRESENTATION IN NEGOTIATION OF CERTAIN CONTRACTS
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister the following: In future, would it be possible to ensure that when preparing for a national or international event, both Francophone and Anglophone representation is provided during negotiations on contracts and conditions between the parties concerned?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent idea.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Lawrence I. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. As the Minister knows, the modernization of the Sydney Steel Corporation is an important part of efforts to rebuild the Cape Breton economy. Can the Minister provide a status report and a timetable for implementing the modernization plan?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's question gives me an opportunity to correct a number of erroneous and misleading reports that have been circulated by Members opposite. There is a $157 million agreement in place to be shared 70 per cent by the federal Government and 30 per cent by the provincial Government. The business plan has been received. The Treasury Board submission is in the final stages of being concluded. It will be presented to Treasury Board before the end of this month, and I expect approval. Furthermore, invitations for the engineering proposals have been released. Everything is on track as we expect it should be.
Privilege-Mr. Waddell TRADE


SHAKES AND SHINGLES EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. This morning on Canada A.M. the Minister said that one of the reasons he wanted to pursue free trade was to avoid the kind of thing that has happened in shakes and shingles. Does he not know that in the shakes and shingles business there is free trade?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the Hon. Member that while there may be free trade between articles, there are also nontariff barriers. There is government procurement. There is "Buy America". There is contingency protection. These are extremely important. They are one of the main objectives we are trying to achieve in the trade talks, that is, a secure market in the United States and the ability subsequently to enhance that market and to have it enshrined in an agreement.


ACCESS TO U.S. MARKET
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, how does establishing in other sectors the same set of circumstances that we now have in shakes and shingles make it any easier for us to achieve access to the U.S. market?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, the type of agreement that this Government contemplates and hopes to achieve with the American Government is to have our own regime for contingency protection. In this way we can have better laws more beneficial to the country dealing with those types of actions for safeguard, countervail, and anti-dumping than presently exist. They will give us the protection we need in the future which we presently do not have.


PRIVILEGE
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a question of privilege of which I gave you notice. Very briefly, I would like to outline the facts.
On Friday, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote) chose to table in the House the report of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, a huge report, after Question Period at noon. As the NDP energy critic, I would be expected to respond to the report in order to carry out my duties. I must comment on the report and I must comment quickly as this is the age of instant media. Those who have previous knowledge of something have a real advantage.

June 16, 1986
Committee Reports
I was a witness before this inquiry. Members of my staff tried to get access for me to the commission lock-up. The report was given to the oil companies in advance via lock-up, even though the oil companies were subject to the probe.
If I can sum up the legal points of the question of privilege, they are as follows. This was an intentional release of a report to be tabled in the House of Commons to non-Parliamentarians before it was tabled in Parliament. The report is the property of the Minister who is responsible to Parliament and therefore the report is the property of Parliament and not of an agency of the Government. Having decided to table this report, the release of the report in advance to the oil companies breached my parliamentary privileges.
In relation to this, Mr. Speaker, I refer you to your ruling at page 10643 of Hansard. At that time, the Chair stated that there may be a case of breach of parliamentary privilege when information which is the property of Parliament and not of a government agency is released in advance. As reported on page 10643 of Hansard, the Chair said:
If the Hon. Member were bringing to me a case with respect to information which, perhaps, was included in an embargoed draft report of one of our parliamentary committees, or some such form, then there might be a question of privilege.
I ask that the Chair look into this matter and take it under advisement.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address myself to the specific question of privilege. It is my understanding that there was no prerelease of this document that was tabled in the House and made available publicly at the same time to all Members of Parliament and the public. I understand that there was a lockup for interveners with respect to the proceedings that take place. However, the practice and tradition is, of course, with respect to documents that are being tabled, that they be tabled without being pre-released and this was the case in this instance.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to support the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) on his question of privilege. I find it ludicrous that the Government would attempt to explain away its actions in not making available to members of the Opposition prior to its tabling in the House of Commons the report of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission.
As the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway has stated, that was a definite infringement on the rights of members of the Opposition to comment on this very important question. Not only that, but it was not as if the report was made public in advance-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member is making the speech he would like to make if the matter were accepted as opposed to making a speech about whether or not there is a prima facie case of privilege. Does the Hon. Member have anything to add to the question of privilege?


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, as the energy critic for my Party, it is impossible for me to comment on this report unless I have had a chance to read it and assess its contents and value. This opportunity was not afforded to me prior to the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I repeat, the Hon. Member is making the speech he would like to make if the matter were accepted.
I presume the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) has made his submission.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I forgot one factual point that I wanted to lay before you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: One factual point or one matter with regard to privilege?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: With respect, to privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: What does the Hon. Member wish to add?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I did want to say that I did contact personally Mr. Jon Church of the Commission to try to get access and I was told that only the oil companies, the interveners, would get the pre-released report.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for his final comment which again indicates a factual matter. There has been case after case of this kind raised in the House. The Hon. Member may have a grievance but there is clearly no question of privilege.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Gilbert Chartrand (Verdun-Saint-Paul):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling the Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare, in both official languages. The report deals with Bill C-116, an Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Federal Court Act.
[editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
June 16, 1986



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-96, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal PostSecondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, we certainly have before the House a major piece of legislation in Bill C-96. This is not in any sense a small housekeeping item. It is a major Bill.
I think all Hon. Members are aware that Bill C-96 will have a significant negative impact on the provinces and their education and medical care programs. It has been repeated often enough, but the figure is so large and alarming that I do not think it can be said too often, that between now and 1992, the federal Government will be transferring to the provinces $8 billion less than it would have if the present fiscal arrangements program had been maintained.
Let no Hon. Member believe that this Bill is a deficit-reducing measure because it is not. It simply transfers part of the Government's deficit to the provinces. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has acknowledged that that is the case. He has said that the impact of a runaway federal deficit is far greater than the problem of shifting the deficit to the provincial level. I would like to ask my hon. friends who support the Government if they can concur in that conclusion. Is it a fact that the transferring of the deficit to another jurisdiction which will therefore have to take action with respect to education and health care, creates less of a problem than the problem we now face?
I know from speeches made by Hon. Members of the Government side in the past that there are many Hon. Members who would not accept that conclusion. Certainly, the Premier of Ontario, the Hon. David Peterson, said directly to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) when he met with him and the other First Ministers that he has not solved the national problem but has only transferred the national problem to the province. At that same meeting the New Brunswick Finance Minister said that from his point of view it was unreasonable for the federal Government to think that provinces which have already taken difficult measures to deal with their financial situations can also be expected to absorb a part of the problem at the federal level. That statement was made by Mr. John Baxter, Minister of Finance for New Brunswick. He went on to say that it was essential that the burden of the deficit be spread fairly across the country, in all regions of Canada. The New Brunswick Minister of Finance also indicated that what the federal Government was doing
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
with Bill C-96 did not ensure such fairness in the sharing of that burden.
The argument being made in respect of Bill C-96 is that it is not a fair way to deal with a very serious national problem. The New Brunswick Legislature, of recent date, went so far as to pass a resolution in respect of Bill C-96. I would suspect- and this would require some parliamentary research-that this is a fairly rare occurrence in the legislatures of Canada. However, in that legislature it was resolved that the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick request the Government of Canada to reconsider its unilateral decision and restore the Established Programs Financing to the level agreed to in 1982.
I notice that a good friend of mine is present in the House, the Chairman of the Standing Committee on which I serve, the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger). In the past he has considered carefully this very same problem. I should like to refer to something he said in a similar debate of a few years ago. He said: "We do not solve the problem of budetary deficits by fighting with one another as to who will spend the dollars in order to provide the service". I agree with the Hon. Member. I have always found him to be a reasonable man who had carefully thought out solutions to serious problems. In that case his comments certainly indicated great clarity.
I should like to repeat my first point, that the federal Government is taking its problem and transferring it into the regions of the country; it is giving its problem to the provinces. I am not at all sure in what way it can feel good or satisfied about that action. In fairness, we know that all provinces will have to bear the burden, but it is not being borne equally. All provinces, but mainly the poorest of them, will have to do one of several things-increase taxes, increase their own deficits, cut services, charge user fees, reallocate funds within their own budgets, or any combination of these.
My second point is that the Government of Canada, with the introduction of Bill C-96, is acting unilaterally. It is doing so without the consent of the provinces. The Government has failed to respect a well established tradition, that is, the tradition of respecting federal-provincial agreements.
In the days when the Party opposite was the Party of opposition, we heard much about how it disliked confrontation with the provinces and how it would bring in a new regime of co-operation. Bill C-96 is not a very good demonstration of that. Mr. Peterson of Ontario said to the Prime Minister: "You cannot call this a cut; you could call it a breach of faith". He went on to say: "You can call it breaking a promise", which is true. In its successful bid for power in 1984 the Progressive Conservative Party promised that it would respect federal-provincial fiscal arrangements. That promise was stated and restated.
However, apart from promises, agreements, and arrangements; apart from the devilish difficulty with which we are
COMMONS DEBATES_________________ June 16, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
faced in terms of how to deal with a continuing deficit and a growing national debt, and apart from other such weighty matters, I think we should be clear about who and what are being effected by Bill C-96. It is difficult for any Member of the House to say that Bill C-96 over a period of time will not have a serious and drastic effect upon the post-secondary educational system. It cannot fail but to do so.
No less an important personage than the Chief Justice of Canada saw fit to raise the alarm on this particular issue. It is very unusual for someone from the judicial branch of Government to talk about public policy issues. Yet, Chief Justice Brian Dickson of the Supreme Court of Canada, in receiving an honorary degree from a university, felt that he had to say something. He said that Canada was on the verge of becoming a second-class nation because of tragic underfunding of universities by federal and provincial Governments. He also said that there are many people who feel that education is too important to be left to educators. That may be true, but it is also true that education is too important to be left in the hands of Ministers of Finance. Bill C-96 will have a serious and drastic effect over time on our post-secondary institutions of learning.
Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that the proportion of the Gross National Product made available by government in Canada to universities and colleges is on the decline? I find it almost impossible to comprehend that at this time in our history, with competition in the field of technology and when demand for a highly educated population is increasing, that the amount of the GNP spent on post-secondary education is not even maintaining itself, but in fact is going down. At the same time, enrolment in universities and colleges is going up. Between 1978 and 1985 enrolment in universities went up by 27 per cent. In colleges the increase was even greater; it was up 35 per cent. How much more money over that same period of time went from Governments for core operations to postsecondary institutions? It was an increase of only 2.5 per cent. Is it any wonder the Chief Justice is alarmed? Every Member of Parliament ought to be alarmed. Is it any wonder that Bill C-96 is being delayed? It is not a question of mischief on the part of the Opposition; it is a question of great principle and it is a question of the assured future of the country. That is what is at stake.
We are facing accelerating technological changes. Young people of Canada need more training and more education to face growing challenges in the workplace. We are talking about a comprehensive free trade agreement with the Americans. Hon. Members opposite have said that it will be a great advantage for Canada because we will be able to compete face to face with the Americans and because we will have a bigger market within which to compete. They have said that we will have to do well and that we will excel. How can we excel and compete when we are serving our post-secondary educational institutions so badly? They are getting less of the GNP and getting only dribs and drabs in the way of increases for an enrolment that is going up year after year. No, Mr. Speaker, it
is strange, curious and illogical to cut contributions to postsecondary education.
Let me refer to what Mr. Ed Anderson, President of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, said with respect to Bill C-96 in this debate:
Proposed federal cuts to post-secondary education could place a university education beyond the reach of many students... Further slashes in university funding could spell hard times for higher education in Canada, resulting in higher tuition costs, program cuts, faculty reductions... The Federal and provincial governments have a moral obligation to give every student in the country at least the opportunity to attend university... Without an educated population, Canada's going to be hard pressed to cope with the rapid changes in our increasingly technological world.
I could not quote a better source than Mr. Ed Anderson of the Canadian Association of University Teachers on that particular point.
The Minister of Finance for the Province of Nova Scotia has also expressed alarm and dismay. He reported, after having sat down with the federal Government at a federal-provincial conference, that "every province made it clear that there is probably nothing more important to deliver to Canadians than health and education. By cutting health and education spending, the federal Government is running the risk of creating two levels of health and education in this country".
The well-to-do provinces, if they have enough conviction and belief in health and education may be able to find the wherewithal to make up for this loss, but what will the poorer provinces do? Is that really what we want, two systems of health and education in this country, one for the wealthy provinces and another one for the poor? That is what Bill C-96 will give us, Mr. Speaker.
I turn for a moment to the health care part of Bill C-96. At a conference on health care sponsored by The Financial Post, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) when he was questioned about the effects of Bill C-96 whispered rather weakly-I do not blame him for whispering-that of course Bill C-96 would affect the accessibility and the affordability of health care programs in the country. He was embarrassed about it.
The Canadian Hospital Association has made it very clear to Parliament that if Bill C-96 passes it will mean a freeze in hospitals on new programs, new equipment and new developments for patient care. Is that what we want? I could not give my consent to a Bill that will do that. The Canadian Hospital Association sees Bill C-96 as having, in particular, an adverse effect on health care programs for older Canadians. Geriatric services are going to be affected at a time in Canada when demographics clearly point to the fact that we have an aging population. How does that make sense? It will also mean reduced funding for work that is being done in organ transplant programs. We know what is happening in that area. It is an exciting new horizon and possibility for the transplantation of such organs as the pancreas, the heart, kidneys and eyes.
June 16, 1986

Yet that program will be affected. How can we pass a Bill that will have that serious an effect on health care programs?
Let me refer to a report by Mr. Justice Hall. Perhaps what he said has been quoted by other Members but it is one of the great statements about health care. Justice Hall said that almost all Canadians were agreed:
-that the trauma of illness, the pain of surgery, the slow decline to death, are burdens enough for the human being to bear without the added burden of medical or hospital bills penalizing the patient at the moment of vulnerability. The Canadian determined that they should band together to pay medical bills and hospital bills when they were well and income earning. Health services were no longer items to be bought off the shelf and paid for at the checkout stand. Nor was their price to be bargained for at the time they were sought. They were a fundamental need like education, which Canadians could meet collectively and pay through taxes.
The federal Government should reviews its priorities. On the one hand it has reimbursed the uninsured depositors of failed banks. It has brought in an exemption from capital gains. It has gradually stopped taxing oil and gas produced in the producing provinces. It has increased RRSP deductions. But on the other hand the Government is saying now to Parliament and to the Canadian people that it is going to cut back on health care and education.
Bill C-96 does not deserve the support of any Hon. Member in this House. I ask all Members to join together at this final and last opportunity at third reading to stop this Bill before it is too late.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) strongly and ably brought forth arguments against adopting Bill C-96. The third reading of this Bill, as he said, does not commend itself to Members of this House. One should go back to the committee work when we heard from the private sector and from the people concerned.
I have a letter before me from the Canadian Medical Association which I believe was addressed to all Members of Parliament. I want to read one sentence from the letter addressed to me dated May 27, 1986.
The Canadian Medical Association has voiced its concern with the implications of this legislation for health care in Canada and especially its impact on health services in the Atlantic Provinces. We are very concerned about the impact of this legislation on health services in those provinces with a fiscal capacity, from their own resources, of 60 or 70 per cent of the national average.
What this country is about is redistribution. It is about equal sharing, sharing of the obligations to make it possible for all Canadians to have an equal chance, to have equal access and to have, we hope, a good life.
The Hon. Member is from Ontario, as I am, and our province is going to be asked to accept a cut of $2.9 billion over the next five or six years. The Member mentioned ageing populations which will require more services for chronically ill people and for in-house type of care for senior citizens, all of which is expensive, I admit. There is also the increasing need for furthering education to cope with technological changes and the technological revolution we are undergoing, along with retraining people in the demonstrably bankrupt job-creation
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
programs of the Government for youth. Does the Member not believe that in Ontario, where we will possibly have to bear the brunt of this $2.9 billion cut over the next six years, that to maintain the quality of services income taxes will have to be raised by the province?
Coming as he does from northern Ontario, which is a large region-and I am not saying this in any sense of diminishing the quality of life there, but it is a more difficult and sometimes a harder life-does the Hon. Member agree that Bill C-96 will have a more direct impact on those living in northern Ontario than those living in the Toronto area, Ottawa, Hamilton or other areas like that? Does the Member think it is fair to the regions of this country to go ahead with a Bill like this which reduces expenditures that were anticipated by the provinces to cope with the increased demands on education and health?


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, the northern part of the Province of Ontario comprises about 80 per cent of the province in terms of land mass. It is true that it has a great deal in common with the other underdeveloped regions of the country such as those regions north of the sixtieth parallel, the Atlantic provinces and, from time to time, depending upon economic circumstances, the western provinces which sometimes find themselves well off and at other times not so well off. Northern Ontario has consistently been underserviced and the costs of services tend to be higher. The people of the region have insisted that they should have their own post-secondary institutions. They have always thought it was unjust that young persons should have to travel to the southern part of the province, or another part of Canada, in order to have the benefits of a college or university education. We have, therefore, developed our own system of universities and colleges. However, enrolments are smaller. One can quickly see that in order to have a variety of programs the costs rise.
The same is true with regard to health care. People in northern Ontario find it objectionable that they must be flown to Toronto for a variety of services. They wonder why they cannot have at least some specialist services and quality health care, if not all those available in a metropolitan area like Toronto. They have fought to have as much of that as possible in local or regional hospitals.
The quality of life in such regions does not appeal to everyone. Some doctors do not find fishing or hunting in the fall of the year to be exciting. Those are the recreational attractions in such regions. Those who are interested in culture or pursuing education while in practice find it less attractive to work there. Therefore, the provinces had to offer incentives which increase the cost of health care.
We in northern Ontario are particularly nervous about Bill C-96 because our past experience has been that when cuts are made it is often easiest to cut in such a region because its voice is not as great as that in other parts of the province. Even though northern Ontario covers 80 per cent of the land mass,

June 16, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
there are only about one million residents. We know the reality of politics. It is the strength of your voice, the number of votes and the number of seats which count. This is the politics of education, health care, and deficit cutting. We are nervous that we will be among the first in the country, along with the Atlantic provinces, to feel the effects of Bill C-96.
I have a clear message from my constituents. They have clearly told me, as their representative, that it is my obligation to do what I can in the House of Commons to convince other Members that Bill C-96 will not serve well the region of northern Ontario or other poorer regions in the country. In the end, I think it will do a great disservice to all Canadians and the entire country.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague why Conservative Members of Parliament are not speaking up on this matter. We have been debating this Bill since 11 a.m. today and not one single solitary Conservative Member of Parliament has risen either to speak or to ask a question. That leads one to seriously question whether Conservative Members of Parliament are properly speaking out for their constituents. It is obvious that Bill C-96 is indefensible. Otherwise, Conservative Members of Parliament would stand up. They are simply not responding to the legislation. They have not tried to justify it in any way. Would my hon. friend and colleague give us some insight on why Conservative Members have said nothing on this particular piece of legislation?


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, of course I am unable to answer the Hon. Member's question. I do not know why no Members rise in their place to speak out.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Just guess.


B. Keith Penner: He asked for some insight. I can say that at third reading of Bill C-96 we are seeing that the much flaunted parliamentary reform, through which Members of Parliament were supposed to be set free from the discipline of Whips, has fallen flat on its face. Where is the reform of Parliament? My hon. friend from Wetaskiwin, a private Member with conviction whom I quoted earlier, has said that the way to handle the deficit is not to fight with each other about who is going to deliver services. I know that that Member feels strongly about Bill C-96. He feels every bit as strongly as I do. I am not casting aspersions on my hon. friend.
I am simply saying that the parliamentary reform which we thought was going to work and be so magnificent in allowing Members of Parliament to express what is really in their hearts and on their minds has failed. We thought we were going to have a new age in Canada. We thought that this Parliament, which is so out-dated and dominated by the executive branch of Government, was going to change. However, despite the work of the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath),
I see no evidence at all in this debate on Bill C-96 that parliamentary reform is at work.
[ Translation]


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, one wonders whether this debate on third reading of Bill C-69 is not an exercise in futility, since it is obvious the Government has decided to proceed with the Bill and impose major cutbacks on resource transfers to the provinces, in terms of taxation ability. They have decided to carry out these cutbacks in the face of all objections from the provinces and the Opposition parties.
Now why didn't the Opposition accept the Government's decisions and let this Bill proceed? Why didn't it go on to other legislation so that the Government could go on vacation at the end of the month, a vacation we all need?
Mr. Speaker, although the Conservative Members are not prepared to change their position on this Bill today, I think it is important to put the facts on the record. How could the Conservatives forget the promises they made during the last election campaign, since they are going to pay for the decisions involved in Bill C-96 in the next election?
However, Mr. Speaker, the immediate impact of this Bill will be felt by the provinces and their taxpayers, by the people who receive medical services and depend on post-secondary education. They will pay now, and they will pay more, year after year.
Mr. Speaker, the House will recall a statement by the Minister of Finance in which he said that to share the burden of expenditure cutbacks, he was going to force the provinces to contribute around $2 billion annually by putting restrictions on transfer payments to the provinces during the next five years.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder how in 1982, the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson), when he was Opposition critic, could criticize the decision by the then Liberal Government to eliminate income guarantees when he asked the then Minister of Finance, Mr. MacEachen, why the Minister was prepared to cut spending in two major sectors. He said in 1982 that the Liberal Minister was prepared to take the risk of major cuts in medical care and post-secondary education. He proposed that, instead of imposing these cut-backs on a unilateral basis and forcing the provinces to cut expenditures and services, the Minister must agree to the alternative solution which was to convene two or three national conferences on health and post-secondary education so as to enable everybody to set the national objectives of various Government levels and thus make joint decisions before imposing cut-backs in expenditures.
Mr. Speaker, that was our present Minister of Finance when he was in Opposition in 1982. This is the kind of thought the Government expressed in the policy and the promises of this Government during the 1984 election campaign. At the time the Conservatives were firmly committed to go back to the 1977 transfer payment funding formula. This means a formula
June 16, 1986

under which health and post-secondary expenditures were shared equally, roughly half and half.
According to the 1977 figures, Mr. Speaker, the federal share of expenditures in these two very important sectors was 48.7 per cent of total outlays. It dipped slightly in 1981-82, but it was still 46.7 per cent. Even in 1985-86, after all the cutbacks imposed by the previous Liberal Government, the share of the central Government was 43 per cent. But what is happening now?
Is the federal share increasing, as the Conservative Government promised during the election campaign to win office in 1984? No, it is the other way around, because instead of restoring the federal share to about 50 per cent the Conservatives have now decided that they will again reduce the federal Government's share of tax points and direct payments to the provinces. So much so that in 1990 the federal Government will pay only 36 per cent of total expenditures for health care and post-secondary education programs. Mr. Speaker, especially the provinces with a weaker tax base will be affected by these cut-backs. I am talking about Quebec, I am talking about the Maritime provinces, and now we must even include some of the western provinces.
For example, in 1990 Quebec will receive less in terms of direct federal Government payments for health and postsecondary education programs than it did in 1986-87. Therefore the Government is cutting back instead of being more generous.
Some Members on the Conservative side-and I might ask, Mr. Speaker, how is it that so few Members of the Conservative Party are taking part in this debate? Are they embarrassed by the policy of their Government? If so, why should they still intend to vote in favour of this Bill?
Mr. Speaker, why won't they consider voting against this Bill or even abstaining, when this legislation will have such a destructive impact on the provinces, including the province of Quebec?
Some Members have observed that it is not a cutback but a reduction in the growth rate of these measures. Mr. Speaker, as we all know, inflation is with us, and if the transfer payments do not keep pace with inflation, the result is a reduction in real terms of the support given by the federal Government to programs that are so important to the people in our provinces. That is in fact what is happening, even if by 199091 cumulative transfers will be worth more in nominal terms. I say we should look at their value in real terms, and the value in real terms will go down, and that is what the policy of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is about.
These cutbacks are not going to affect the provincial premiers, Mr. Speaker nor Members of provincial legislatures. These cutbacks are going to affect the taxpayers, the ordinary people. They are going to affect the capacity of our provinces to provide training for our young people so they can meet the challenge of an increasingly competitive market in the future.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
Our post-secondary institutions are going to be weakened as a result of these cutbacks.
Mr. Speaker, I remember that during the election campaign,
I had a few discussions on this subject with the Conservative candidate in my riding, who has disappeared since then. During the campaign he told us: We have one promise and that is to cut the deficit. But when? We asked him how he would reduce the deficit. He told us: You know, there is so much wasteful spending at the federal Government that we can eliminate the deficit without harming anyone.
We know that such is not the case, Mr. Speaker. While the Nielsen report criticized a few Government activities, it found very little wasteful spending and certainly not enough to account for a deficit of $30 billion a year.
What the Government did was try to eliminate the deficit it had been left by the former Liberal Government by making cut-backs in programs which are very important for Canadian men and women throughout Canada, such as health care programs, hospital insurance and medicare. These cut-backs will affect the men and women in the health care field, not only the doctors who are already well-off, but also the nurses and all other health care professionals. These are people who work very hard throughout the week and at all hours since sickness does not occur only between 9 in the morning and 5 in the afternoon. These are people who devote their life to health care. They will suffer because of a lack of funds. Who will impose these conditions? The federal Government. Who will impose them? The Conservatives. Who will impose them? This Government, after promising change.
Many Canadians voted for this Government because they thought that it was time for real change. But did they vote for changes which would affect people and families in general? Did they vote for cut-backs in the hospitals? Did they vote for a continuation of the trends which now exist in Quebec health services, where there already are major problems? I have here some notes on the way these measures are already affecting health services in Quebec, where hospitals have had to close down their emergency services because of a lack of money, for instance.
That is one result of the cutback brought forth by the provinces even before that. It is a fact that in Quebec, for instance, the funds allocated to health care and post-secondary education in the provincial budget have dropped by about 6 per cent over the past five years. But that trend will worsen with the cuts applied by the federal Government.
And if we consider that the Quebec Government will be losing some $500 million in 1990-91 because of this single measure, then they will be losing $1.4 billion over the next Five years and because of what? Because of the cutbacks imposed by the Minister of Finance and the Government. I do not care to listen to Conservative Members who set themselves goals in order to defend those cuts. They would like to believe that somehow Quebecers will have no idea of who is imposing these

June 16, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
cuts that will affect all of Quebec, the health services in La belle province.
So it is incumbent upon me, even though I am not personally a Quebecer-a Quebec-educated non-Quebecer-to tell Quebec tax-payers that those cutbacks are not the work of foreign forces but by their own, not by a government from Ontario or Western Canada, but by a Government with 56 Quebec Members. At one time they were 57, but one of them has resigned, so this may be somewhat less effective than before. But Quebecers have 56 Members in Government. They have a Quebec caucus which meets every week to discuss Government moves, they have six, seven or eight Cabinet Ministers who supposedly are very powerful-


An Hon. Member:: Ten!


Michael Morris Cassidy: One of my colleagues opposite informs me they have 10 Members, but those Ministers, Mr. Speaker, do so little to defend the interests of Quebecers that it is almost ridiculous.
For instance, we may very well ask what the Minister of State (Mines) (Mr. Layton) is doing for the people of Montreal, in Quebec, what the Minister of State (Youth) (Mrs. Champagne) is doing in this Cabinet. Actually, nothing! How can you explain the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) consistently contradicting the statements made by the Minister of State (Small Businesses) (Mr. Bissonnette) concerning Quebec shipyards? Certainly because Quebec Ministers have so little influence in the Cabinet.
How is it that the Cabinet reshuffle which was supposed to give to a powerful Quebec Minister an important economic portfolio has apparently been postponed indefinitely because the Prime Minister wants to keep the Regional Industrial Expansion portfolio available for the possible return to the Cabinet of the Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) who had to resign on account of an interest-free loan accepted by his wife from a company doing business with her husband's department.
Those are the real problems but the only question which should be asked is why Quebecers with 56 Members have so little influence on that Government and have to suffer that $500 million loss and such reduced services? Those are the questions which I have raised, Mr. Speaker.
I think it is time we make sure that the Government either keeps its promises or publicly states that any Tory commitment is worthless.
I note that the former Minister of Science and Technology is here, Mr. Speaker and when I was the critic for that portfolio,
I asked him some questions. Why is the Government forgetting its promises concerning funds for research in Canada? There was no reply except that things were different when they returned to power.
Perhaps things are different now, but I wonder if the Conservative Party, with about a hundred Members in the Opposition, with all the research facilities at the disposal of an Opposition Party, with all the advice it could seek from the business world, from universities. . . One of my former professors, Mr. Charles McMillan, from York University, could seek information from Bay Street or Saint-Jacques Street, from major corporation investment analysts . . . They had the Fraser Institute, the C.D. Howe Institute, and so on. But, with all these resources, how is it that the previous Federal Government could keep its secrets so well that Conservatives had not the least idea how things would be once they had gained power, to what extent the perspectives would be changed when they would be the Government?
When they made these great promises, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Conservatives were telling lies or tall stories, perhaps they were really hypocritical when they promised to reinstate the 1977 financing formula for established programs, because this is what we are dealing with in Bill C-96.
Mr. Speaker, I imagine and, in fact, I cannot help but find that if Conservative candidates made these false, incredible and unfaithful promises, it was because they felt they needed them to gain power.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I will say the Governments which do not fulfill their promises destroy the confidence of the whole population in the political process. I say to Quebec voters: If you don't trust the Liberals because they told you tall stories and if you cannot trust this Government because it is telling you its own versions of the same tall stories, that is the way the old parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives, treat the voters. They do not have any respect for the people.
And, frankly, Mr. Speaker, I believe Canadians are entitled to have in Government parties in which they can better put their trust. This may be a reason why Quebecers gave us a 30-per-cent support and have ranked us second in their surveys. Because more and more Quebecers have had enough of the old parties, realizing the way they ignore their election promises.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) how it so happens the Liberal Party ranks first, if Quebecers are so tired of the Liberal Party?


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, of course this is a good question. But I am sticking to facts. Since the last election, the New Democratic Party has gained some 20 per cent in terms of surveys in the Province of Quebec, while Conservatives lost some 22, 23 or 24 per cent. And it is my view that the level of support in the Province of Quebec for the Liberal Party is now almost the same as it was during the last federal election, in 1984. If it went up somewhat, certainly it is because of that transfer of support from the Conservative Party to the New Democratic Party.
June 16, 1986


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) if he can comment on the remarks made by the Minister of Finance in his Opposition days, when he said for instance, concerning the financial program situation with reference to the then Liberal Government: The only way the federal Government is reducing its expenditures is by transferring to Provincial Governments the burden of established program funding. The provinces are now faced with a deficit and they are therefore in an even worse position to take over these expenses from the federal Government. This is not cooperative federalism, but predatory federalism, and it cannot and will not work in Canada. This is what the Hon. Minister of Finance said when he was sitting on the side of the Opposition on March 23, 1982.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre why, in his opinion, the Minister of Finance reversed his stand in this way. In 1982, he was very categorical about federal transfers to the provinces, but he now seems to have changed his mind.


Michael Morris Cassidy: If I could explain how the minds of the Conservatives work, I would be a very wise man. However, I have no idea how they do. As the Hon. Member for Hamilton East well knows, I quoted other statements of the Minister of Finance made in the same spirit as that one.
This means that, when he sat on the side of the Opposition, the Minister of Finance always attacked the Liberal Government because of cut-backs, but now, instead of reversing the cut-backs he used to criticize, he himself makes cut-backs in the established programs financing which may be even worse than those imposed by the former Liberal Government.
I do not want to see us go back to the days of the former Liberal Government because, when I meet my constituents, they recall how the Liberal Government had become arrogant and isolated from the Canadian voters. However, Mr. Speaker, Canadians are becoming increasingly suspicious of the Conservative Government when they see all the faults of the former Liberal Government multiplied now that the Conservatives are in power.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, could the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre indicate what impact, in his opinion, these cuts are likely to have on health costs? Because he referred earlier to the provinces' need to have access to waiting rooms and emergency rooms, and I know it is a fairly serious question, even in the Ottawa region. In this regard, could he indicate how the general public, and especially the patients, will have to pay following the transfer of the cast burden from the federal level to the provinces?


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the people will indeed have to pay in terms of reduced services and longer waiting lists for elective surgery. As everybody knows, the longer you have to wait for elective surgery, the worse your condition will get. The condition may be serious, but not serious enough to justify an immediate intervention. Just the same, for the patient who is
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
being incapacitated to such a point that he cannot work, it means that he has to stay home. This will be reflected for instance in the provinces' capacity to provide a patient with the services which might save his or her life. I refer for instance to the use of dialysis devices for patients with kidney conditions.
It is of course optional in terms of how many dialysis units are available in each region of the country and in the absence of other technology.
A province makes a truly life and death decision when it chooses not to invest to ensure that enough of these equipments are available to those who need them.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I must say I am surprised that not a single Conservative Member is interested in the health question, for it seems to me it is a very important issue.
Still I would like to speak to the education issue for a moment because we already know there have been repercussions in the post-secondary education sector. For example, we know that barely a few days ago a Supreme Court justice took what was an extraordinary step when he said that the postsecondary education situation in Canada is deteriorating to such an extent that we are falling behind among the most educated nations of the western world. I should like to ask the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) whether he has any suggestion, more precisely how these education budget cut-backs would affect the francophone community outside Quebec, especially for instance people who are now attending the University of Ottawa or other universities where full postsecondary education in French is available?
Will they be more or less severely affected by these budgetary cut-backs?


Michael Morris Cassidy: Everybody is affected. The University of Ottawa, for instance, which is an excellent institution and the only one to offer an outstanding program for the Franco-Ontarian community. Every other university in Ontario will be affected as well. In Ontario there are now discussions about plans for rationalizing post-secondary education services. What it boils down to is an attempt to make some of our institutions second-class universities. And why? Because the authorities have decided they will not have sufficient resources in the future to maintain the quality of all post-secondary institutions. And so, Canadians living in the area around Toronto or in the Kingston area, near Queen's University, will have access to an outstanding university, but the other universities will have to be downgraded to second class. That is something I cannot accept.
The University of Ottawa with its French program will certainly be affected. I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that last year, in Quebec, the University of Montreal had a deficit of $14 million and Concordia University had a deficit of $28 million. That is a lot of money, The combined deficit for all universities in Quebec is $80 million, and that is before the cutbacks that will be imposed by the Quebec Governement, if the province has no other option as a result of Bill C-96. I would like to recall the following statement in the

June 16, 1986
Adjournment Debate
Conservative Party campaign book, and I will read it in English:
"We would return to the 1977 funding formula, though we cannot compensate the provinces for the 6 and 5 funding losses."

Everybody lost out as a result of the 6 and 5 financing formula proposed by the Liberals. The situation is worse now. The Conservatives promised the exact opposite of what they are doing. They promised regular consultations with the provinces on post-secondary education, another promise, Mr. Speaker, that has been ignored by this terrible Government. [English]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments is over.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)-Health-Presence of dioxin in vegetables, fruit and milk; the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson)-National Defence-Request for publication of study on impact of shooting range proposed for Lac Saint-Jean region; the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier)-Adminstration of Justice-Use of official language of choice-Supreme Court decision, b) Request that the government modify the law-Federal prosecutors to use official language of accused.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-96, An Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal PostSecondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977, be read the third time and passed.
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-96. It is very illustrative that in the dying days of this session of Parliament, with Members of Parliament having visions of their summer holidays dancing in their head, we are here debating an important piece of legislation that will be the legacy of the Conservative Government. If the Government has its way, the most important chapter of its brief time in office will not be the one about rotten tuna. It will not be the chapter about the Government's attempt to deindex senior citizens' pensions, as brutal as that was. It will not be the chapter about the globe-trotting cabinet Ministers gallivanting around Europe. It will not be the chapter about the resignation of the former Minister of Defence. It will not be the chapter that illustrates the resignation of the Minister of State for Transport. It will not be the story of the Minister of DRIE and whether or not he talked to his wife, and his subsequent resignation. It will not be the story of the presidential travelling style of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Hercules aircraft that floats along behind him with two vans stuffed full of video equipment to record his every utterance, be it in this country or elsewhere. It will not be the story of the largest personal tax increase in Canadian history that the Government has weighed down on the shoulders of hard-pressed Canadian taxpayers. The legacy of the Government will be none of those short, transitory, media-headline-grabbing items. The legacy of the Government will be the day that Members of Parliament allowed a Draconian measure called Bill C-96, the Bill before us today, to pass this place.
When the historians take that chapter down off the shelf and brush away the dust and try to understand what kind of Parliament it was, what kind of Member of Parliament it was that, indeed, Canadians sent to this place, that could have allowed such a Draconian, short-sighted measure to pass through this House, they will be wanting to know what it was the New Democratic Party of the day had to say, they will be wanting to know what it was the Liberal Party of the day had to say, and they will find a record of what we had to say. But it is tragic that they will not know what it was that Hon. Members opposite had to say.
It is worth noting that government Members are not standing in their places today to defend the Government's initiative that will see some $8 billion accumulating in the coffers of the federal Government. One would think that any time the Government could pass a financial measure to accumulate $8 billion in its coffers, Members of Parliament supporting the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada would want to stand in their places and bask themselves in the applause of Canadians saying, "what a brilliant measure they took". Not a single parliamentarian has the backbone, the intestinal fortitude, the integrity, to stand behind this Draconian measure; not one. So, we see a litany of New Democratic Party and Liberal Party speakers standing on their feet, talking, as we say in Newfoundland, to the wall, because there
June 16, 1986

is a wall over there that has been built under the Whip of a Party that has told its Members, "You shall not have a mind of your own. You shall play the game". So, is it any wonder that we hear back-benchers on the government side referred to as "surfers", those who surfed in with the tide and those who shall surf back out again in a few years?
The Government of Canada is saying it wants to save some money. It wants to reduce the deficit. It wants to restore fiscal responsibility to the federal Treasury. It told us when its Members were elected that it would identify fat in the federal system and would trim it. I have been standing in my place with bated breath waiting for some Hon. Member opposite to stand up and parade before the House and the people of Canada that long list of scurrilous fat that they have found in the federal system and describe how they have restored responsibility to the fiscal policy of the Government of Canada. What is the list? Health care, education, period. The Government of Canada is not cutting away fat. It is not even cutting away muscle. No, the blade has sliced down deep into the bone and it is bleeding away the marrow. Just as the marrow in one's bones is necessary to rejuvenate the body and keep it healthy, so too are adequate health care and education systems necessary to the body politic of this nation to keep us world-competitive.
The Government has found a new definition for fiscal responsibility. It is called transferring the federal debt out of Ottawa and on to the backs of the poorest provinces in the country. The Government has reduced the deficit by transferring its deficit and its responsibility on to provincial Governments. And, Mr. Speaker, there is not even a whimper from Hon. Members opposite. They do not have the courage to stand and speak their minds and defy this Bill. They do not have the integrity, if lacking the courage, to defy it, to stand and oppose it.
In my own Province of Newfoundland, with 30 per cent unemployment, a province that is one of the poorest in this country, citizenship, being a Canadian, already has two definitions. There is a first-class Canadian and a Newfoundlander. There is a first-class Canadian and a Cape Bretoner; a first-class Canadian and a Quebecer who lives in the Gaspe; a first-class Canadian and someone in Ontario who lives in the North. In my own province, where we fit into that category, Bill C-96 will cut $187 million out of the health and education system.
So that Hon. Members opposite are not carried away by the glitter of the chandeliers in this place, and by the splendour of the marble, and by the fine woodgrain on these lovely desks they provide us in this place, let me tell them what we mean when we speak of the education system in Newfoundland. We speak of a little school in the community of Flower's Cove. In order to ensure that a handful of handicapped students would not have to be bused four hours a day to receive an education, members of the community struck up their own concerned citizens committee to raise the funds to graft a little classroom
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
on the side of an existing schoolhouse, doing the work themselves, to give 12 handicapped students the chance to grow up in their own community, the chance to be educated with their brothers and sisters. Why? It was because the Government of Newfoundland said, "The money simply isn't there".
In my own Province of Newfoundland, Memorial University has built a first-class medical school. It has been able to begin to develop world-class skills, and professors. That medical faculty has become nothing but a rating school for other institutions which are able to offer those same teachers a minimum of 25 per cent more in salaries, and they are disappearing off the island.
What do we talk about when we talk about health care? This morning in my constituency office, a gentleman called me, a Dr. Jacobs, who has only been in this country a handful of years and who has lived and worked in northern communities. He told me, "You must oppose the Bill because, my friend, in those northern rural communities the quality of health care that your constituents are receiving is already third rate, and that is in advance of the additional $187.7 million worth of cut-backs". This gentleman is a specialist who lives and works in Newfoundland, even though he receives substantially less in salary. He will stay as long as he is able to find the tools to commit himself, to dedicate himself to his field. He will not leap across the gulf in order to obtain a higher salary. But as a specialist he wants to know that the tools will be there in the hospital to serve his patients. This $187 million cut seeks to consign my Province, not only in terms of the medical care being offered and the quality of the personnel available but in the quality of the new technolgies evolving in the medical field, as a musuem piece of the health care system. That is not good enough.
What I find tragic is this feeling I have that we as Canadians are talking to a wall, those Members opposite who propose to see this legislation pass before the House adjourns this summer. I have the feeling that the words I have spoken, and the words spoken by the Premiers, by the Canadian Medical Association and by the Canadian universities, are nothing more than an echo that bounces unreceived off the walls of this Chamber. I say that because Members opposite are not listening. The price of listening is the exposure of raw nerves, because gentlemen opposite know that to proceed with this legislation which will cut $8 billion out of health and education services is to do a great and historical disservice to Canada.
It is a hell of a country we live in when we sit and realize that over five years $8 billion will be cut out of health and education facilities, and that during that same five-year period, because of a change in the Income Tax Act called the capital gains provision, $8 billion will be paid out to the wealthiest Canadians. Is that not an incredible paradox? In the same Budget in which the Government has indicated that it is seeking the $8 billion cut-back in investment in our youth, and for our sick and our senior citizens, it has announced an $8

June 16, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
billion give-away as a result of new capital gains provisions to our wealthiest citizens.


Mr. Scowen:: That's b.s.


Brian Vincent Tobin: If the Hon. Member believes it is b.s. then he should get on his feet. He should not sit and mumble behind his hands.


Jack Scowen: I'm not mumbling.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Your constituents sent you here to speak on their behalf in order to represent their views and interests, not to say behind your hand in a mumble: "b.s.". It is incredible that it takes a shotgun to wake up some of these people.
The hon. gentleman says that is b.s. The Premier of Ontario does not say it is b.s. He called it a breach of faith-that's b.f., not b.s. He also calls it something else. He says it is breaking a promise. The Minister of Finance for Quebec said that it is unfair to the provinces because they were counting on these amounts of money for the setting up of their programs. The Minister of Finance for New Brunswick, a good Conservative, said:
It is unreasonable for the federal Government to think that provinces which have taken difficult measures to deal with their own financial situation can also be expected to absorb part of the problem at the federal level.
Mr. Keer, another good Conservative and Minister of Finance for the Province of Nova Scotia, another fellow shooting b.s. according to my friend, said:
By cutting health and education spending, the federal Government is running the risk of creating two levels of health care and education in the country.
Mr. Vic Schrooder, the Minister of Finance for the Province of Manitoba, said that Mr. Wilson "made the wrong choices- the choices are basically to look after the people of the country or the corporations". He was referring to the tax breaks the federal Government has given business, and to the capital gains provision that matches precisely the amount of money that is being cut in education and health care.
We are taking money out of the pockets of the people in terms of health care and education and passing it over to the wealthiest individuals through the capital gains provisions instituted by the present administration.
Mr. Roger Hamel, another man shooting b.s., President of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, has urged the Government to spend more, not less, on universities. He said that the business community is increasingly concerned that the squeeze on post-secondary education funding will make it impossible for universities to meet the demand for research and development. The President of the Canadian Association of University Teachers is opposed to this measure, as is the President of the Social Science Federation of Canada, as is the Canadian Medical Society.
That is not b.s. These are not people looking for today's headlines. These are people concerned about the shape the country will have tomorrow. They are saying to Members opposite that any time they attempt to balance the books of the
nation by saying that to the young people-since that is who we attack when we see these Draconian measures imposed- that we have stopped moving forward as a country. They are saying that anytime we say to our young people that the Government has lost the will and, more important, the vision to invest in their future, and therefore the country's future, then we are moving backward. Anytime we say to Canadians, irrespective of where they live, that they are entitled to a first-class medical system which shall be approximately the same in every province, and then say that we can longer provide that, that we do not believe it, then we have changed the definition of Canadian citizenship.
When the Prime Minister during the course of an election campaign makes a commitment to invest more in our education system and says that he will respect funding levels for health and education he should keep his word. That is the kind of country I want to live in. I want a Prime Minister who will speak to us from his heart and not from a Hollywood script. I want to live in a country that says we can be among the very best of the nations of the world in the evolution of new technologies and that our people will have the basic raw materials to compete with the very best in the world, not a country that says the cost of investing in our young people is a cost too high. I want a country and a Parliament in which Members will occasionally find the courage to stand on their feet and oppose legislation which they know is not in the best interests of their constituents, which does not reflect their views and, more important, which will take this country down the road to mediocrity, both in terms of health care and in education.
Thus I appeal to Members opposite: Let us hear your voices. If you have the courage of your convictions then stand on your feet and we will find out whether or not there is a rational defence to be made of this Bill. If you have not the courage of your convictions, if you have forgotten already amidst the glitter, the chandeliers, the glow of the marble that surrounds you in this place and the cocktail circuit that swept you away from the concerns of your constituents back home, then go away from here. Do not cast a vote to pass this measure which you have not the courage to defend.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway).


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member and all his colleagues are aware, government Members have spoken many times in the past with respect to this Bill. The process that is going on here today is one of merely trying to filibuster the Bill.
I would like to put one single question to the Hon. Member. Is it more fair that the payments to the provinces from the federal Government for health care and post-secondary education be increased by 7 per cent when inflation is running at 12 per cent? That was the case when the former Liberal Government was in power, and the Hon. Member was a supporter of that Government. Is it fairer that these payments
June 16, 1986

were increased by 7 per cent when inflation was running at 12 per cent under his Government, or is it fairer that these payments be increased by 5 per cent when inflation is running at only 4 per cent, as provided by this Bill?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that if I have done nothing else this afternoon, using my tongue like a blunt scalpel, I have obviously touched a nerve of at least one Conservative Member who has managed to find both his tongue and his feet.


John V. Nunziata: And the courage.


Brian Vincent Tobin: That is right, and the courage. I want to pay tribute to that Hon. Member for having found his tongue, his feet and his backbone all in one fell swoop. If more Hon. Members were to do that, we might be able to have a debate today rather than a continuing litany of some Hon. Members prepared to speak for Canada while others are prepared to bend to the whip of the Government opposite.
The Hon. Member asked a question which is totally warped in its approach to this problem. The Hon. Member talked about the inflation rate of the Canadian economy being 4 per cent and the rate of increase in transfer payments being 5 per cent. He was attempting to-listen to the thunder, Mr. Speaker. God has spoken. God is on the side of the people of Canada. He rumbles from above.


Sheila Maureen Copps: She.


Brian Vincent Tobin: She rumbles from above, as the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) has said.
The Hon. Member knows full well that the rate of inflation as it relates to the cost of providing medical facilities in Canada is far above the rate of inflation in the economy. When we talk about the health and education systems, we are not talking about a series of transfer payments for welfare, we are talking about re-tooling and modernizing. We are talking about staying competitive in a vastly changing technological world. We are talking about keeping Canada relevant to the 20th century and that costs more than the rate of inflation.
The other thing I want to say is that the Hon. Member knows full well that the Government of Canada, through the Prime Minister, made a commitment to the people when the Prime Minister was seeking the tumultuous 211 seats that were delivered unto him. The commitment was not to cut back on education and health care.
Another commitment was made and that was that Canada would see a brand new day. There was going to be cooperation and consultation. The Prime Minister promised that he was going to consult, to talk, to reach a consensus and to develop compromises. He promised to talk back and forth with the provinces. He said that there would be no more confrontation. What do we have now? Every single province in Canada, regardless of its political stripe, is up in arms saying that the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
Prime Minister has not kept his word and that he is transferring the federal debt out of the federal treasury and onto the provinces.
Who created the debt? The Hon. Member supports an $8-billion tax giveaway through the capital gains provision to Canada's wealthiest citizens, but is defending this cut made on the backs of young people, the aged and the sick. He does this with a grin on his face. This is the vicious and cruel face of Toryism that has erupted in the dying days of this Parliament. It will not work. The legacy of this Government will not be rotten tuna, it will not be Ministerial resignations and it will not be the temerity of the Prime Minister. It will be this move to destroy education and health care and it will be a sorry legacy, indeed.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Member would project his mind ahead a few years. If we keep on with these reductions in increases, what will be the effect on medicare and education services in Newfoundland in the long term?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Government is setting up, through Bill C-96, other user-pay legislation and the abandonment of regional development policy, two Canadas, the Canada that is within throwing distance of Ottawa including Montreal and Toronto and the other Canada where everyone else lives. The Government is saying to the people of Newfoundland, Vancouver Island, Prince Rupert and Gaspe that if they want to live in the North or the regions, if they want to make their homes there and if they want to raise their children there, the Government can no longer assure them through its McDonald's market-place mentality a basic level of services with the same rights and privileges as every other Canadian. The Government is telling these people that if they want to live in the outlying regions, they shall pay a price to live there. If they want to see the best that Canada has to offer and if they want to participate in the Canadian dream, they will have to live in Toronto, Montreal or Ottawa. If they want to participate in the Canadian nightmare in the making, then they should dare to live elsewhere in Canada.
The Government may not realize it because there are too many muted voices on the back-benches coming from these regions, but the setting up of two levels of education and health care, two levels of citizenship, will tear more at the fabric of confederation which holds Canada together than anything we saw during the course of the Quebec referendum campaign. Canadians expect certain levels of services, not always in jobs, opportunity, investments or otherwise, but in basic health care and education opportunities. They expect that there shall be only one level of Canadian citizenship. This legislation tells those who have to heal themselves and those who do not to rot away because the Government is balancing the books and that is much more important than investing in young people or looking after the aged and ill.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, you may have noticed that I hesitated to rise because of course

June 16, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
I was anticipating that a Tory would gather up his courage, rise to his feet and speak to the legislation that is before Parliament. However-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Shakespeare said to screw up your courage.


Cyril Keeper: They simply do not have the courage to face the issues.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Have you got anything to say about the Bill?


Cyril Keeper: I hear an echo from the far right corner of the Chamber asking me if I have anything to say about the Bill. I ask that question of members of the Conservative Government. Do they not have anything to say about this legislation? Have Conservative Members simply clammed up and decided that it is sufficient to be silent and to make decisions behind closed doors? Have they decided that this Chamber is to be ignored by members of the Conservative Government? Is that the reality?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Cyril Keeper: I hear the dogs on the other side barking more, but they will not rise to their feet to engage in genuine debate.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No, mice.


Cyril Keeper: They will not take their turns in this debate to tell us why they are taking a knife-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is a serious matter. As someone who has long owned a pet dog, I feel that the Hon. Member has offended dogs very much with his reference to hearing the dogs over there barking. Dogs and I both resent the comparison he made between Conservative Members and long-standing friends of man-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


John V. Nunziata: I rise on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May we return to debate with the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper)?


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to debate how best to describe silent Conservatives.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mice.


Cyril Keeper: However, I do have more serious points to make in this debate. We do know that Conservative Members are failing to meet the issue head on. They are failing to tell us why they have chosen to reduce the amount of funding which the federal Government plans to put into the medicare system. However, my fundamental point concerns the fact that the way in which we handle our medicare system is not only a matter of dollars and cents. It is also a matter of what kind of approach we take to providing health care. That element must
enter into this debate if we are eventually to get a handle on the costs of medicare.
I should like to refer to a group of doctors from Ontario who I think are a good source of ideas and inspiration about how we might improve medicare rather than destroy it. The group to which I refer is the Medical Reform Group, a group of Ontario doctors who do not feel well represented by the Canadian Medical Association or by the Ontario Medical Association. Recently one of its members attended a public rally in Winnipeg dealing with the rising costs of medicare and with the fact that the Conservatives were cutting back on the financial contribution of the federal Government to medicare. Some fundamental points were made, one of which was that the Canadian medicare system was more cost-effective than the private health care system of the United States, because all insurance functions were under one roof and adminstrative costs, therefore, were handled more efficiently. A more important value of the Canadian medicare system is that it ensures access for all Canadians to medical care, whereas in the United States large numbers of people are not covered by its private approach to ensuring health services.
I should like to quote from the remarks of Dr. Michael Rachlis who spoke in Winnipeg at the April 3 rally which I mentioned. He said that there were at least 30 million persons in the United States who were not covered by its medical care system, whereas in Canada everyone was covered.
A great deal can be said about our medicare system, yet it can be improved. That is about what we in the Chamber should be concerned. We should be concerned about how to improve the medicare system rather than undercut it be withdrawing funds at this point. We need to identify some areas in which medicare could be improved, in which costs could be reduced in the long term, and in which we could get better value for our dollar.
Dr. Rachlis did a good job of identifying these areas in his address. He pointed out that clinical medicine was often unevaluated and that procedures which were used had not necessarily been tested as to effectiveness. He also indicated that inappropriate personnel were used to treat certain illnesses or to deal with certain health problems, and that it was often high cost personnel. As well, there is a concentration of doctors in urban centres which results in a distribution problem. For the medicare system to support increasing numbers of doctors, obviously it costs the public purse an enormous amount of money.
I should like to expand a little on each of those points. First I should like to give an example of clinical medicine being unevaluated. The doctor pointed out that a surgical procedure was developed in the 1970s which was supposed to prevent strokes. Thousands of these operations were performed all over the world. However, when a proper trial was conducted and reported on last year, the operation was found to have absolutely no benefit. The funds which went to this operation
June 16, 1986

can now go to other programs. However, how many other procedures are awaiting proper evaluation? There are innumerable procedures in clinical medicine which have not been scientifically evaluated. Doctors employ these procedures, and we as the public pay for them.
If we instituted a system whereby clinical medicine and the procedures involved therein could be scientifically evaluated, we could weed out ineffective procedures and thereby produce a savings for the public purse. We could come at the whole question of medical and health care costs from a different angle than that of the Conservative Government. It simply looks at the balance sheet of medicare-how much revenue can be collected from Canadians and how much money is being spent through the medicare system. It sees costs rising and puts a lid on it to reduce the amount of money intended to go into medicare. This is done in an unthinking way, which could and likely will damage the medicare system.
The Conservative Government should take a serious look at the delivery of health care services. It would see that indeed there is a need for some real leadership. The Government should examine how services are delivered and how they can be better delivered. I am not only referring to long-term savings as a result of a more effective delivery system, I am also referring to how we can ensure that people have the health care services they need. If the Government evaluated clinical medicine and the procedures thereunder, it would be a way of looking at costs from a rational perspective.
Dr. Rachlis made another significant point in his address to the rally in Winnipeg. It concerned the inappropriate use of high cost personnel. He said:
We all know that we often consult a highly trained medical specialist when our real problems could be solved by a good chat with a friend or loved one. However, the major inefficiency in this area is the fault of the system, not individual patients. Specialists do things which could be done by family doctors. Family doctors do things which could be done by nurses. Nurses do things which could be done by unskilled personnel.
Another major area at which to look for cost savings in the health care system would be the appropriate use of personnel. Why pay for a doctor, who is the most expensive specialist in the health care system, to do something which a nurse or nurse practitioner could do? Why pay for a nurse to do something which a lay person could do? There are areas at which we could take a rational look in terms of the cost of the medicare system. In fact, if we examined the system from the point of view of appropriate use of personnel, we could in fact raise the satisfaction level of people working in the system. People do not want to do a job which does not use their skills appropriately. They only find satisfaction when their skills are being used effectively. That is another area at which the Government could be looking instead of approaching health care costs in an arbitrary fashion.
I have more data from the same source, Dr. Michael Rachlis, who indicates that a study was carried out in Burlington, Ontario in the early 1970s where patients were randomly
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
assigned to receive their primary care from a family doctor or a nurse practitioner. There were no health differences in the people in the study. It was found that nurse practitioners could provide at least 25 per cent of the care provided by family doctors. Here is a case study which demonstrated that nurse practitioners could provide health services that are otherwise provided by family doctors, obviously at a more economical rate but still good health care. The study found that people did not suffer when being served by a nurse practitioner rather than a family doctor, so we need to examine how we use personnel in the medical system.
Another area in which we could take a reasonable and rational approach to costs in the health care system would be to look at the increasing numbers of doctors. We could make a case for a deficiency in the number of doctors in rural and remote areas where it is difficult to get doctors to go. Most doctors are in large urban centres.
To use Manitoba as an example of what is happening, there were 884 fee for service doctors in Manitoba in 1971 and by 1981 there were 1,147. That is a considerable increase in the number of doctors where the population has been stable. To quote other statistics, the physician population is growing six times faster than the population of Manitoba as a whole, and the ratio is the same for Ontario during the past year. How many doctors do we need? For what purposes can they most appropriately be used? We must recognize that services of a doctor cost the public a great deal. We can justify any increase in the number of doctors by citing the fact that the number of seniors in the population is increasing and requiring more doctors. But this is a rationalization. We need to take a closer look at the situation rather than doing broad rationalizations.
We need to examine the way in which the projections for the number of medical personnel are made. Doctor Rachlis does a good job in his address about the way we project the number of physicians needed.
Serious questions could be raised about the health care system. Serious questions could be raised relative to whether we are getting full value for our dollar in the health care system. The Conservative Government in the proposals put before this Chamber has done nothing of that. It has reduced the amount of money it is putting into the health care system.
What can Governments do? They could take a serious look at the health care system in the longer term instead of looking at it in terms of today's budget and today's objective of reducing the federal deficit. When you look at it solely from that perspective you are led to the conclusion that the amount of transfer payments to the provinces and the amount of money the federal Government puts into health care should be reduced. By doing that, you reduce the capacity of the system to innovate and change at a time when the system needs to be innovative and to have the capacity to change with the longterm view in mind.
In order to retool the health care system, so to speak, we need to invest in the short term. We need to put more money

June 16, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
into the system in the short term so that in the long term costs can come down. By cutting the funds going into the health care system in the short term we have no opportunity to innovate. We will be undercutting the health care system, the very system that has been so cost-effective up to now.
If we compare the effectiveness of the Canadian health care system with the American system, we can see clearly how much more cost-effective our system is than theirs. But if we now pull the rug out from under our health care system, we will endanger it and push it in the direction of privatization. Fears have already been expressed about this right across the country. Short-term cuts will push our health care system into the private sector. We will be raising the cost of health care in Canada and adopting the American approach. A larger and larger percentage of the Gross National Product and a larger and larger percentage of money from each citizen will have to go into health care. That will squeeze other items in the Budget, other kinds of services that people need, for example, post-secondary education.
What the Government needs to do is to take an intelligent and long-term look at health care. We need to ask how we can improve the system rather than taking an accountant's shortterm look at health care. We must ask how we can better deliver health care, how we can more effectively deliver health care, not only in cost effectiveness but for the person who receives health care.
The Government has failed to do that. It approaches questions from an ideological perspective. The Government simply looks at things from the perspective of the deficit rather than looking at service, human need or the long term. If the Government looked at the long term, it could save the public dollars. If the Government continues with its short-sightedness, it will undercut the present system, which will mean increased costs for all Canadians.
We on this side of the House not only call upon members of the Government caucus to enter the debate but we ask them to enter into it intelligently and to start talking about the health care delivery system and what kind of impact the Government's actions will have on the system. Why does the Government not start searching for some alternatives, because some very real alternatives do exist?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) refer to the pilot program which dealt with the issue of nurse practitioners in Burlington, Ontario. I think he will know that that program, originally developed at McMaster University, was perceived to be the first prong of the development of an implementation of the report tabled by Marc Lalonde over a decade ago entitled New Perspectives on Health Care for Canadians. Unfortunately, that program suffered an untimely end because it was discovered that once these highly capable and highly effective nurse practioners graduated from McMaster University they were unable to get placements because of the traditional concern expressed by the "establishment" of the medical
profession about permitting nurse practioners to take on more responsibility. That was so even though the figures showed that they were able to deal, in a cost effective way, with about 25 per cent of the problems which came through a doctor's door.
It seems to me that the solution is to change the role of the gatekeeper. As long as the focus of the gate keeping is tied simply and solely to the role of the medical doctor without expanding the team approach, as was suggested in the Lalonde report New Perspectives, we will continue to see very positive programs such as the McMaster nurse practioner program terminated because they do not bear out in reality.
It was rather sad that the nurse practioner program was only successful when the nurse practioners were working in northern areas where doctors did not want to go because they found that not being close to urban centres was not convenient for them. The studies showed that in most cases nurse practioners could do some of the jobs which were being done in a more costly way by physicians. However, they were not given the chance to do that because the traditional gatekeeper, i.e. the physicians, did not want to see their areas of authority encroached upon in any way. Therefore, that program was ultimately terminated.
Could the Member comment on how we need another report since more than a decade has elapsed since the Lalonde report was tabled and we have not seen a big change in the health care system?


Cyril Keeper: I appreciate the comments of my colleague. Marc Lalonde did make a genuine contribution to the health care debate in the country when he issued the New Perspectives report. I raised the issue of nurse practioners and the issue of the Medical Reform Group in Toronto and discussed how we can deliver health care in the country because I am sure that Canadians get tired of listening to debate in this Chamber and hearing the Government say that it is broke and the Opposition say that the Government lacks heart and does not care and should ensure that the system is adequately funded.
What we say is true. The Government does lack heart and demonstrably lacks foresight as well. However, I raised the issues I did because I wanted to point out that it is not only a question of dollars. It is a question of how we use those dollars. It is a question of leadership. The Government has demonstrated to the Canadian public that it lacks leadership, management capacity and competence. The Government bungles all over the place and it continually hits the headlines. The Government trips over itself in the way in which it handles issues. In the process of tripping over itself and concentrating on its image, with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) flying around with a plane full of video tapes behind him, the Government ignores the substance. It ignores the reality that there is need for real leadership to deal with the question of health care in the country.

June 16, 1986
The nurse practioners system was a way of delilvering situation is a good illustration. In his address Dr. Rachlis pointed out the problems with the health of native people. He said:
The group of Manitobans with the worst health status is of course the native population.
Their major health problems are infectious diseases and violence and accidents which are often related to alcohol. However, these are of course symptoms of social problems. Should we treat the problem of violent trauma with a new, sparkling emergency department or with social and economic programs?
The nurse practitioners were a way of delivering a service in northern communities to which we cannot get doctors to move. If we put ir, place regulations which say that doctors have to practise there for a period of time, they would scream "discrimination" or "violation of human rights". Yet, they stand as gatekeepers and do not allow the nurse practitioner system to develop.
I am calling upon the Government for genuine leadership. I raised the questions which I did in my comments to illustrate that there is a genuine need for substantive leadership. Someone must study the health care system and raise serious questions about how we deliver health care in the country visa-vis cost, provide long-term maintenance of the kind of health care system we have, and ensure that health care gets to the people. We must design the system appropriately so that it will get into northern and rural communities. Health care must be made available to the poor in our inner cities.
I call upon government Members to enter into this debate in an intelligent way and to rise to the challenge of the need for genuine leadership in the country in the health care field rather than simply cutting funding for health care and creating a polarized debate about whether or not we can afford a health care system. Let us face the real issue of how to deliver a health care system in the country which will be economic in the long term.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's comments. I would like to correct one misconception which is on the record. The Medical Reform Group is not only in Toronto. There is a world outside Toronto. I happen to know some members from Hamilton, Simcoe and other places. Although Toronto sometimes thinks it rules the universe, we in Hamilton know otherwise. In any case, the Medical Reform Group is comprised not only of physicians, but also of other representatives of the health care community who are concerned about these issues.
I could not agree more with what the Member said about restructuring the way in which we finance our health care system. Some time ago the federal Government unanimously passed the Canada Health Act. All three Parties agreed that it was critical that all Canadians have universal access to health care. That access was being thwarted by a practice which was still occurring in some provinces, including the Provinces of Ontario and Alberta, that being the practice of extra billing. The Ontario Government decided to ensure that within the three-year period following the application of the Canada
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
Health Act it would bring its laws into line with respect to extra billing-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must interrupt the Hon. Member to advise her that the time for questions and comments is just about to expire. The rules do require me to guarantee the Member the right of reply. Therefore, I must ask the Member to allow the Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) to reply now.


Sheila Maureen Copps: May I just finish? I was just going to-


Mr. Speaker:: We are out of time.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Does he have a comment?


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that it is a good rule that Members should have an opportunity to reply. Clearly, doctors in Ontario, at this moment at least, are following a path with regard to their policy on extra billing that undercuts a fundamental principle of medical care in this country, that being universal access. The Government is doing the same thing in a different domain.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must advise the Hon. Member that the time for questions and comments has now expired.


Cyril Keeper: I just wanted to make the point-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must advise the Hon. Member that the time has expired. Resuming debate.


Cyril Keeper: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have just a brief sentence to add with regard to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Cyril Keeper: Why did you cut me off as soon as I mentioned the Government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The time has expired. The Hon. Member knows that when the time expires, the time expires. The Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo).


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to rise in this debate and record the continuing disappointment of the citizens of Canada in the Government's neglect in not looking at our health and education systems and recognizing our tradition of continuously improving those services to all Canadians. For many years Canada has been working towards an equality in social services recognized as the best in the world. Equality in education means that every person in every part of the country has the same kind of opportunity to get the kind of education he or she wishes or can handle. Regardless of whether they live in Newfoundland or in Yukon, they will have the same quality of education as they would have had they lived in downtown Toronto or here in Ottawa. That tradition, which is part of the fabric of Canadian life, is being attacked by Bill C-96.

June 16, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
I know the Government says that these measures represent a decrease in the increase, that the actual amount of money the provincial Governments will receive is increasing. Elowever, it is not increasing as fast as costs are increasing. As a result, the quality of our education and health care systems will be reduced.
The result of this legislation will be that the provinces will receive less money than they have been counting on for education and health care. If the provinces decide that they have to put into health care and education money they had been collecting in taxes for other purposes, they will then be reducing other kinds of services. It is not a matter of this legislation affecting just health care or education. In fact, the whole fabric of social services in Canada is dependent upon the kind of sharing of costs established in the 1960s between the federal and the provincial Governments. That fabric is being torn.
This is also a matter of the Conservatives breaking one more election promise. They promised faithfully over and over again during the election that they would return to the 1977 funding formula although they could not compensate the provinces for the 6 and 5 funding losses. That was their commitment. They said they would institute regular consultation with the provinces as set out in the original agreement and reach a consensus on the nation's goals for post-secondary education. That was the promise. Yet instead of that we have the federal Government moving unilaterally with this legislation. I know Members opposite call it consultation, but this was done at the end of the federal-provincial conference and there was a straight statement by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) that the federal Government was going to start immediately to reduce the rate of increase of federal contributions. Cuts, decrease in the increase, or reduction in growth, whatever term you use it is one and the same thing, a substantial amount of money is being unilaterally chopped from the provinces.
As has been said many times, there are some provinces which may not be hurt that badly. Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Ontario will notice the cuts, but they probably have the resources to compensate to some extent. However, many other provinces such as Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland have no way to raise the extra money they need to improve the quality of their health services or education, much less hold it at the present level. If you do not get the money you are expecting, you are bound to have to cut the quality of services.
In some ways what we have here is a matter of priorities. The future cost of medicare and higher education is being fixed at a level lower than that of the oil companies, investors, banks, and even the cost of new uniforms for the military. Those are the kinds of things the Government has made its priorities. In the next five years the Department of Defence will see, according to the budget papers, a 41 per cent increase in its budget, but health will receive only a 14 per cent increase. That seems to be the priority of this Government.
As I said before, it is not only the fact that they are getting less money, it has a domino effect on all of the services within the province. The Government is generating new funds by taxation by introducing sales tax and increasing the costs of access to the national parks; the cost of shipping, if Bill C-75, the Canada Shipping Act is passed; and the costs of inspection in agriculture and so on. These are new sources of revenue that the Government is tapping.
It is going to bring in, through these new sources of revenue-if we can believe the Minister of Finance's papers-over $35 billion per year by 1990-91. Only $1 billion of this, or 3 per cent, has been allocated for that sacred trust of health care and higher education.
As the Government increased the taxes by $35 billion it decided that only 3 per cent is going to go to health care and higher education. That is an indication of the priorities established by this Government.
What we are witnessing is the back door method of killing medicare and of reducing access to education to the point where some day down the road we will have a situation where medicare and higher education will be for the privileged in society only.
Tommy Douglas, when he spoke about the development of medicare in Saskatchewan, and many people, even in this House, who spoke of the development of medicare across the country, had a dream that no person in Canada would feel that they had to deny themselves medical treatment because of the cost. That has been an accepted principle by the people of Canada. What this Government is doing in this Bill is breaching that trust. The doctors themselves, who should be protecting medicare, who are out there fighting for extra billing, are breaching that trust as well. This Government is reducing the expected possibility that some day there will be no need to deny medical treatment to anyone because of cost.
If this Government expected, or felt that it had the responsibility, to ensure that medical treatment was available for everybody and that there was quality higher education for anyone who could use it and wanted it, then the Government would be moving in that direction instead of cutting off funds.
It is very important that we make sure that Canada does not become, like many other countries of the world, a place where health care and higher education is for the privileged few.
It is not surprising that in committee stage of this Bill the only organization that endorsed this Bill was the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. Only two provinces made presentations to the committee. New Brunswick sent a written brief opposing the Bill, and its Government passed a unanimous resolution urging the Government not to go ahead with the legislation. Manitoba appeared in person by sending its Health and Education Ministers to present their case and their opposition to Bill C-96.
June 16, 1986

We have almost every provincial Government in Canada expressing outright opposition to this approach and telling the Government that it is breaking a trust that it promised before being elected that it was not going to do this, that it would continue with the level of funding at the level it had been in 1977 by the same formula.
You also have every province saying that it does not have adequate funds in its Treasury to take the place of the increases that the Government is '[DOT]educing. The provinces are going to have to take those funds away from other projects. The quality of life in our province, the quality of life in Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, in Quebec and Manitoba, is going to be reduced because the federal Government is breaking its promise.
It is important to point out that the people of Canada are recognizing the direction in which this Government seems to be going, as expressed, I suppose, most vividly in the Nielsen report. Every area which is costing the Government money is being looked at, and either eliminated-without consideration for what it is going to do to the fabric of our society- transferred to some other body, or paid for by the citizens themselves.
The tendency for the Government to transfer the costs to another body is, I think, what the provinces are resenting the most. The fact that the deficit, which the federal Government created, is being transferred, not to the people who increased the deficit or who had a great deal to do with the establishment of the deficit, but to the provinces, which have, in most cases, been very careful about deficit funding. Most provinces do not have a large deficit at the moment, but are being forced by this Government, in its attempts to eliminate its deficit, into a deficit position.
What will the future effect be of less money being given to the provinces? It is going to be things like extra billing ana hospital costs charged to the patients. The effect will be psychological as well as physical. People will begin to think that it is too expensive for them to get the kind of education or the kind of health care that they need. Perhaps the most important consideration is that the best economic asset for any country is to have a well qualified and well educated workforce. When the quality of higher education throughout the country is reduced, the effectiveness of the workforce diminishes, thereby lowering the chances of greater economic development. When one considers that economic development is the means by which to eliminate the deficit, the effect of reducing the quality and quantity of higher education will have the long-term effect of depressing the economy even further.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the Hon. Member's speech and I congratulate him for making the points he has made.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
The Hon. Member talked about broken trust, unilateral abrogation of a pact between the provinces and the Government of Canada that was to last for a number of years, and he talked about the transfer of the deficit which shifts the burden of that deficit from the Parliament and the Government of Canada to the provinces. All of those comments are valid.
He also talked about the kind of pressure that would be put on certain provinces, such as mine, which has the least fiscal capacity and the highest taxation in the country. It has the lowest per capita income in the country. The result of shifting this additional deficit burden on to the province will make it virtually impossible for that province to react positively and make up the difference. The burden will ultimately fall on the students because the universities also do not have the financial resources to make up the difference.
The Hon. Member made a valid point that the Government is really imposing a burden on our young people, the group in our society that is least able to bear that burden and should not have to do so. This Act, as it affects post-secondary education-notwithstanding its effect on health care-will place an undue and unfair burden on our young people. It is those very people on whom we depend.
I want the Hon. Member to comment on one aspect which I am sure he has thought about but did not mention. What will be the effect of this Bill on the country as a whole? We have some excellent scholars, excellent teachers and outstanding students. However, the post-secondary education community, among others, has said that because of the parameters in which they have to work we are in danger of not only creating a second-class educational system, but a third-class educational system. The Hon. Member's colleague from Windsor commented on this aspect this morning.
I would like the Hon. Member to address the point raised in a recent book by three eminent scholars, entitled The Great Canadian Brain Robbery, that professors are escaping and students are leaving this country to go to the United States. Surely that has an effect not only on them, their parents and the job market, but on the country as a whole.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will be on television tonight to talk about trade. A component of that subject is national sovereignty. What does the Member think about the whole issue of national sovereignty and what effect this policy of the Government will have, not only on young people but on the very fabric of the nation itself in helping to give Canada an identity?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raises a very valid concern about the effects of this Bill. Not only will we be cutting ourselves off economically if we cease to provide the best quality education to the greatest number of students, those students who do manage to get the education will be looking elsewhere for better opportunities. It was not too long ago that often we could not find qualified professors in our country because the quality and quantity of our education was not adequate. While we have been able to develop our own

June 16, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
quality educators lately, they have had no place to work and therefore have gone elsewhere for employment, quite often at salaries that are no better than ours. Many of these people are leaders in their professions who take jobs elsewhere and become citizens of another country. For every well educated leader we lose, we lose that much of our sovereignty and identity which those people give to us.
We can talk as much as we want about the economic effects of this Bill, but the fundamental issue is its psychological effect. If the young people in this country come to believe that Canadians are unwilling to give their youth a greater opportunity for quality education, the psychological effect of that will be carried forward into the next generation and the generation after that. It is a crime to allow our educational system, which has grown since the war to the point of becoming untouched by most countries in the world, to be so psychologically undermined that people believe it is not worth the investment and improvement. That is the message being given by the Government through this Bill.


Bill Rompkey: A supplementary?


Mr. Speaker:: We are ready for debate, but I will allow the Member a very brief question. There is less than a minute remaining.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the answer by the Hon. Member but will he address a further matter? I appreciate what he said about the brain drain, leadership and the fact that people are leaving the country.
If there is a cut-back in research in the sciences and engineering, surely this will not allow Canada to keep up on the leading edge of technology. Furthermore, a more serious consequence is that a reduction in research in the humanities and the social sciences surely does something to us as a nation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to protect the Member's right to reply, with less than half a minute remaining.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, at my own university in Saskatchewan, many of the professors at that university tell me that they have so many classes and so many students that research and writing have become secondary and they probably will not indulge in them in the next few years. That is a disaster.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Debate.


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, as the Liberal critic for the Secretary of State, and therefore, for post-secondary education, it is my task to try to call to the Government's attention its devastating policies with respect to our colleges and universities. I have criticized Bill C-96 above all as a move by the Government to abdicate its responsibilities to the provinces, students, or whoever, concerning the future of our youth and our nation. At a time when everyone is crying out that it is imperative that we do all we can to become more competitive and productive as a nation
because of competition in the world, we find that the Government is taking us into circumstances where we must ensure that our ability to be competitive is very great, yet it is taking away our ability to compete by devastating the very underlying system which gives us that capacity to compete, namely, our educational system.
At every hearing we have had in committee, in terms of speeches made on behalf of the academic community of students or of those who are concerned about research, our ability to compete and the studies that have been made, the same report has been made to the Government. It is going in exactly the wrong direction. Not only is it going in the wrong direction, but it is one that is contrary to the policies that it espoused before the last election. It is contradicting its promises. It is going back on those promises. It is even breaking agreements it made with the provinces that, until March, 1987, there would be the same level of support for post-secondary education and health care. It broke that promise a year early. It is cutting back the increase to postsecondary education and to medical and hospital care down to 5 per cent, a cut of 2 per cent on what was supposed to have been added to make it possible to keep up with soaring expenses in these vital areas of our country's future.
At every stage, I have fought this Bill through the House. I have focused on the fact that it devastates the futures of our universities, our youth, our economic development. It seems to me that it is imperative that we try once again, in this very last-ditch effort, to call to the attention of the Conservative Party and to its Government in power the fact that the step it is taking now is retroactive. It is also retrograde. It is regressive. It is the three Rs, but the wrong three Rs. It is wrong for them to proceed in this way, and it is going to bring about lasting harm to our country.
I have appealed to the Government to reconsider its views because it is, in fact, going back on our young people. It has accepted policies which, for example, hold back not only on the the EPF transfers for post-secondary education, but also hold back on our young people by freezing the level of loans for our students, by cutting back on such programs as the Terry Fox Institute and the Youth Forum, by totally cutting out Katima-vik, by cutting back by 40 per cent on the seats in the community colleges for training and retraining, by cutting back on the youth ministry itself, its budget, till it is simply nothing more than a PR stunt and not a ministry that has the funds or the staff to effectuate any kind of future planning and policies for our young people.
There is a whole list that I have just given, and many other things that I could have added, to show that the Government has gone backwards on its programs for youth, not forward, that it has undercut them, not helped them. Aside from devastating the programs on youth, it has also been cavalier and devastating to our programs on research. This has been almost equally serious.
June 16, 1986

There was a conference held in November, 1985, of academics from across Canada who gathered together to discuss the effects of cuts on university research; as they called it, chronic underfinancing. In an interview, Dr. Don Savage of the Canadian Association of University Teachers said, "If there is this demand across the border in the United States, that is, for scientists and engineers, we have been so niggardly in dealing with our own that they will think it is reasonable to go somewhere else". Dr. Stewart Smith, the President of the Science Council of Canada said in an interview that he expects "a brain drain could well occur in the near future. I feel that we will see a very, very large-scale movement, especially among our young scientists, in the next three years or so. I am really quite concerned about it. The universities are under siege". The federal Government is cutting down, in other words, on support. So expert after expert is trying to call the attention of the Government to the danger of its policies in terms of research.
Instead of building up our research, as it promised, to the level of 2.5 per cent of GNP, we are at the level of 1.3 per cent and definitely not increasing. That is a tragic attack on our future, when we see our universities, our colleges, our research, our development, being underfunded.
The simplistic explanation we are receiving, Mr. Speaker, which I assure Your Honour the provinces do not appreciate, is that we are trying to reduce the deficit of the federal Government. This means that it will pass on this deficit to the provinces, which is maybe a saving for the federal purse but not a saving to the taxpayer, because then he or she must still pay it to the provinces. The provinces will have to find the money or our educational system and research will suffer even more. Of course, some, again simplistically, say, "Well, let the students pay for more tuition, cover it with more tuition". There is no hope that students who are raising money for tuition fees could cover to match the kind of financial assistance needed to make our educational system function effectively.
So the Tory reply that this is a cut to the deficit that is needed is not a reply at all, because what it is merely doing is passing on this deficit to others. It is not providing us with the kind of educational system that this country needs.
I shall try one last time, on this third and final reading, to appeal to another area of concern that may persuade Hon. Members opposite, if they would listen, of the importance of giving the necessary support to our educational system. Bill C-96 undercuts the future of our colleges, of our community colleges, not merely universities. We may sometimes think,"The universities provide us with professionals who have big salaries-doctors, lawyers, dentists, architects-and why should we, as citizens, support those universities to such an extent? Let them pay for it". I do not agree with that argument, in any case, but let those who find that argument appealing, think about the fact that a cut-back in funds, or the lack of adequate funding for post-secondary education, means a lack of funding for our community colleges.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
At a meeting of the legislative committee which was considering Bill C-96 a Mr. Gallagher of Vancouver came to testify. He is the head of the Association of Canadian Community Colleges. He made a very logical presentation in which he tried to appeal to the government members of the committee to listen to a rational argument as to why it is a short-sighted policy to cut back on our community colleges. He had this evidence to give:
In 1985-86, almost two million adult Canadians will be served by a community college somewhere in Canada. This dramatic change in the structure and orientation of Canadian post-secondary education is a product of the special nature and character of these relatively new and vigorous "colleges".
There are some 165 publicly-supported colleges in Canada, with a college system in each of the provinces and the territories. They fit into the educational mosaic of each jurisdiction in different ways: most are identified as community colleges or as colleges of applied arts and technology; the CEGEP system of Quebec is a partner in the movement; some colleges operate as institutes of technology or use some other official designation.
What Mr. Gallagher points out is that there are two million Canadians who benefit from this system of education, a system which depends on federal transfer payments for its existence. If it were not for the fact that the federal Government was transferring something close to $6 billion by direct and indirect funds to the system of education, mainly the post-secondary educational system, we would have no community college system and our universities would be devastated. I think all countries facing a competitive world understand the vital importance of a sound and advanced educational system. They understand the importance of keeping the people of their country at the highest possible level of training and retraining in terms of their readiness and excellence.
We appeal to the federal Government to understand that they must go forward into the future. The only way to do so is to strengthen our system of training and education for these two million people who use our community colleges. I should point out that this issue was eloquently addressed by Mr. Gallagher who said:
These colleges have many common characteristics. They provide postsecondary educational opportunity for graduates of our secondary schools; about 20 per cent of college students enter directly from secondary school. They attract thousands of adults who have been away from formal education, some for considerable periods of time, and provide for them the opportunity to improve their academic qualifications, to acquire basic literacy levels, to learn new skills, or to enrich their academic, technical or professional experience. These colleges have a large percentage of full-time students but part of their distinctiveness is their substantial part-time enrolment of students wishing to retrain or upgrade their skills for improved employment opportunity and more effective citizenship.
For Canadians who may hear my voice, and for Canadians everywhere, whether they hear my voice or not, two million of them will be attacked by Bill C-96. They are the losers because this Bill is not adequate to meet the needs of post-secondary colleges. It does not affect just a few college students or a few university students studying for their medical degrees. It affects the average Canadian, two million of whom will lose as a result of Bill C-96 being pushed through the House without amendment, without change, without mercy and without vision.
14476

June 16, 1986
Western Canada Drought
Our community colleges are in fact a brilliant, versatile and flexible way by which we can modernize our resources in terms of our people, by keeping up to the standards and levels of world-wide technology. Our colleges reach out to the average Canadian by providing an opportunity to upgrade their skills and abilities so that they can hold down and obtain jobs. To hold back on federal funding of post-secondary education as the Government is doing is to hold back on these Canadians. Ultimately, it will be a devastating attack on our people.
Mr. Gallagher also pointed out that:
Because of their responsiveness, the colleges have, particularly in recent years, become significant forces for economic development and revival at local, provincial and national levels. They have been identified in their own provinces as engines for economic growth rather than as institutions outside the mainstream of public concern.
The establishment of innovation centres to stimulate the economy has been a recent phenomenon in Canada. Many of Canada's colleges have turned their energies to innovation and the transfer of technology to the work place as part of their commitment to provincial and national economic development through entrepreneurial innovation.
Here is a Government which out of one side of its mouth talks about its concern for our entrepreneurial ability, about research and development, about being ready to face the modern world and compete, about having free trade so that we can obtain access to more markets and compete. At the same time, out of the other side of its mouth, it utters policies which take away that very ability we should have of being able to provide those entrepreneurial skills to Canadians to compete in this very competitive world. It makes no sense. It is a self-defeating policy. I suggest we should be moving in the opposite direction.
If this Government is to talk about cutting the deficit, then let it proceed with cuts in other areas. In terms of other priorities, there can be no greater priority than for us to train our people for employment and to make them resourceful, to give them the skills they need in order to compete and in order that our country can compete in the world and become a nation that will not feel threatened by trade barriers.
Our future hinges on research and development. It also hinges on a well educated and trained community of people. Community colleges train not only the average person to upgrade his or her skills as an adult but they continue to help throughout his or her lifetime. We no longer have an educational system in which a person exits at the end of grammar school, as was the case when our Constitution was first drafted. No longer do we have a system in which one exits at the end of high school. We now think in terms of ongoing education. Some call it recurring education, while others call it continuing education. We now understand that we have to have an educational system in place that will continue to educate Canadians throughout their lifetimes. We must understand that at no time do we come to the end.
In accordance with our Charter of Rights and Freedoms we see senior citizens at the ages of 60, 65 and 70 availing themselves of educational opportunities in our community colleges. It is true that they might not be able to put these
skills to work in the workforce, but they are enriching themselves. They have a right to that education. The Government is not allowing the funds necessary to the provinces, as has been the case in the past, to be able to cope with the needs of our educational structure. By having a growth pattern of only 5 per cent per year more than what it was in the past-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must interrupt the Hon. Member to tell him two things. It is now six o'clock and his 20 minutes have expired.
It being 6 p.m., pursuant to order made Wednesday, June 11, 1986, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   AGRICULTURE SUGGESTED TABLING OF REPORT ON DROUGHT IN WESTERN CANADA
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from May 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Boudria, seconded by Mr. Foster: That an humble Address be presented to Her Excellency praying that she will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the report presented to the Prime Minister pertaining to the drought in Western Canada.
Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, when the question of drought in the Prairies is raised, we cannot but be concerned about the situation facing farmers and livestock producers. The Government wants to solve this problem by means of concrete and direct measures.
As a first step, a task force was set up last summer to determine the extent of the problem and the impact of the drought. This vital task was entrusted to the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson), Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. In fact, Mr. Speaker, a report on the subject is to be tabled shortly. Not long after the task force was set up, and as already mentioned by the Hon. Member, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) announced a $48 million program to help Western livestock producers who were severely hit by the drought. Since producers in my riding were also affected by drought, and I know how serious this can be for Western farmers. It is expected that 500 farmers in British Columbia and 38,000 farmers in Saskatchewan and Alberta will be eligible for compensation. This covers direct assistance for 400,000 acres in British Columbia and 21.2 million acres in Alberta and Saskatchewan. The Government has decided to improve the lot of the many farmers who have suffered under very bad weather conditions during the last three crop years. The contribution will be in addition to $683 million in crop insurance payments paid to Prairie grain growers this year. About 88,000 farmers who insured their crops this year will be
June 16, 1986

able to benefit. These financial contributions, Mr. Speaker, demonstrate the federal Government's commitment to ensuring that the agricultural sector in Canada remains a viable and profitable industry. I am pleased to point out that today, the Minister of Agriculture announced the last payments provided under the Crop Disaster Assistance Program for Western farmers. This means that the balance of $64 million will be paid shortly to the farmers, a payment that covers an area of over 21 million acres. Farmers will be able to face the current crop year with more assurance and, of course, a better cash flow.
The Government has been able to face emergency situations whenever they arose. But of course, Mr. Speaker, ideally we need a permanent solution to the funding problem in case of disasters. This is why the federal Government has been making concerted efforts with the provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. Under a new crop insurance program farmers will benefit from additional coverage without having to pay a premium for 1986. The purpose of this is to eliminate the need for special assistance and set up an over-all assistance program. This is included in the third phase of a drought program recommended by the task force.
In recent years, Mr. Speaker, drought conditions have had devastating effects on Canadian agriculture, but steps have been taken to lighten the financial burden of producers. They are beginning the crop year with hope while getting ready to minimize the disastrous consequences of future natural calamities.
Mr. Speaker, ever since the Conservative Government took office in September 1984, several measures have been taken to help the farming community in both eastern and western Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I must confess to being very proud to belong to a Government which has decided to give priority to agriculture in our economy and to help needy farmers. However we know that agriculture is now in a transition period, and I am sure that more concerted efforts on the part of the provinces, the federal Government and all agricultural interests will go a long way towards facing up to the challenge of the future.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, in 1985 the American Congress passed legislation which may very well have an impact on our farmers.
When there is a drought or a disaster or, for instance, when as in recent days, the weather is unsettled ... We heard a while ago that very strong winds are expected in the Ottawa Valley. I hope the farmers in the Petite Nation area and in the northern part of my riding will not be hit by that storm because we know how important this is and the crop insurance programs, and their various schemes are not that good for helping farmers. They want at the end of their crop year to reap benefits from their crops.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate.
Western Canada Drought
I know that I only have ten minutes but I would like to say as a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, that I often meet with farmers in my riding. Besides, during the forthcoming months I intend to have action taken on behalf of the apple producers in my riding who came to ask the Minister for monies under a program. Of course, I entirely support them.
In 1983, there was a drought in my riding and no help could be provided. I am pleased to see that as far as the drought in the Prairies is concerned, our Government has already taken action.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House requests the production of papers regarding the drought in western Canada, papers that were supposedly produced by the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) and presented to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) in order to determine the drought payments to be made across western Canada. The effect of this was acceptable in that farmers did receive some drought payments, but there are a great many people who are not particularly satisfied with the payments that were made. Several thousand of them have appealed the decision to make the payments that were made.
It is our understanding that the recommendations that were made to the Prime Minister and Cabinet regarding the drought payments indicated the need for larger payments than the ones that were made, but that is hearsay. In fact, we have become a little suspicious. After all the stonewalling that has gone on about producing these papers, we wonder if the Hon. Member for Assiniboia ever did write a report. We have no indication that he did. Obviously, the study should have culminated in a report, but after a while we become a little suspicious if we do not see some evidence that the report was ever written. Perhaps there is nothing to table.
Many years ago when the Liberals were in power, we were not promised too much regarding freedom of information and we did not receive too much.
For many years a great parliamentarian, the late Walter Baker, as a member of the Conservative Party when it was in opposition, campaigned in an attempt to establish the basic concept of freedom of information. He worried that perhaps we would get too much information, that we would be flooded with information, and that we would not be able to use it well. It seems as if the late Walter Baker did not realize that his own Party would be the obstruction in the possibility of obtaining too much information.
When it was in opposition, the Conservative Party promised to move very quickly into the area of freedom of information. Many past Members spoke eloquently in an attempt to convince the former Liberal Government that it should move in that direction. It is somewhat disappointing for Canadians

June 16, 1986
Western Canada Drought
to be faced with a situation where the Party which supposedly was to give us freedom of information is stonewalling it.
We understand that the Hon. Member for Assiniboia made a number of recommendations in his report which were not listened to. If that is so, it is the kind of information that Canadians should know. If he did not make the report, from where did the recommendations come? Was $150 million recommended? Was the amount paid to the Government of Saskatchewan for drought payments part of the recommendations of the Hon. Member for Assiniboia? I understand the average payment was about $6.88 per acre. Is that the amount that was recommended, and is that what was actually paid? Canadians have the right to know these things.
I do not know why the Hon. Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) moved his motion when he did. However, there is something to learn from the entire procedure. Those people involved in agriculture in Canada need a structure which is not quite as ad hoc as the present one to deal with drought and other disasters in the agricultural community. Perhaps the information contained in the report of the Hon. Member for Assiniboia, which was presented to Cabinet, would provide insight into the kinds of programs which could be put into place, programs which would not be ad hoc or contain disturbing features. I hope there will be some kind of guarantee to Canadian farmers in the future so that they can be assured of obtaining a good price for their produce. In the event of storms, frost, or any other disaster which reduces the crops of farmers, the Government of Canada should guarantee to make available funding so that they can at least survive.
Western Canada has some of the most efficient and most effective producers of agricultural products in the world. Many of them are having trouble surviving and are unlikely to survive a great deal longer, unless there is some kind of guarantee that they will receive a return on their production in the next year. Perhaps we should be travelling around to find out all the information we can. This would provide us with a better understanding of the continued cash flow problems faced by Canadian agricultural commodity producers.
We are really talking about two or three different things when we ask for these papers. First, we believe that the people of Canada have the right to a basic understanding of how great was the problem and how well the Government dealt with it. Second, in that the Government has espoused freedom of information, larger quantities of information should be available to help Canadians understand why the Government makes the decisions it makes. Third, we need to compile information and use it in such a way as to solve the problems caused by disasters so that farmers do not have to repeatedly go to the Government and ask for assistance. They should not have to tell the Government that they have experienced another disaster and do not have funds in their organization and therefore it will have to dip into the revenue fund.
The Government seems willing to pay for banks and trust companies when they get into trouble. However, when it comes
to paying for 24,000 or 30,000 farmers who are in trouble year after year, it means that something is wrong with the system. We should take the information available to us and use it to ensure that these things do not happen continuously or do not happen in the future. I hope the Government will provide the report, if it is available, not only to Parliament but to the people of Canada.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to follow the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) whose speech improved as he went on. I agree with the last part of his speech. It is important for Parliament to come up with a better and more permanent solution to natural disasters as far as farming is concerned.
If we improved the crop insurance program by including a section which automatically insured farmers for natural disasters, it could be a solution to the problem of dealing with crop disasters and natural disasters each time they happen.
Many Members have visited areas stricken by drought. My constituency suffered as a result of the drought in Alberta. I think they would agree that we must direct our minds to improving the crop insurance plan so that it deals with disasters. We do not need a task force such as the one headed by the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) each time we are faced with a natural disaster.
I understand that Members of the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party may be upset that they did not participate in the task force. I think the opportunity was given to them to participate. That is why they would like to see the recommendations that came forward. Of course the Government is going to comply and offer the papers to the Hon. Member and to Hon. Members of this House who have put forward the motion. It is important that we discuss for the future the recommendations and the experience we have had as a result of the serious drought that occurred in many areas of western Canada in the last three to four years.
There is no question that it is difficult today for farmers to work out a plan to survive on their farms if they are hit by a natural disaster. Commodity prices are so low that they are simply not covering the cost of production. No one can put away funds for future difficulties.
I can remember in 1955-56-57 that we were completely hailed out for those three years in a row. The farm, however, was able to survive because in previous years we were able to put away some money in the event of these kinds of disasters. Today in mine and my neighbour's operation that is simply not possible, nor is it possible to put aside any funds to replace machinery. That is how serious the situation is today in agriculture across Canada.
If a farm is faced with a natural disaster, as many prairie farmers have been for a period of one, two, three and in some cases four years, it becomes almost impossible to survive even with government programs. I agree that we have to work out
June 16, 1986

an adequate crop insurance program so as to allow farmers to survive drought, storms or any natural disaster that could completely ruin a crop.
Last year the Government responded with assistance through co-operation with the provincial Governments. They assisted farmers through the Livestock Drought Assistance Program which provided feed for livestock to the tune of some $48 million, or about $30 a cow. It was difficult for farmers to buy sufficient feed on that kind of money to winter an animal. We were fortunate in many parts of the prairies to have had a very mild winter this year. Just the same, it was a very stressful period of time for many of the cattle farmers in the drought area.
As well, we have to work out a better system through crop insurance. Creating boundaries within which people will be beneficiary of a drought program causes some problems. If you happen to live a mile or ten miles outside the boundary, you do not benefit even though you have been a victim of drought. This has caused much consternation through the two or three years of drought.
Last year's program at least addressed this problem somewhat by having an appeal board which allowed a group of farmers to appear to justify their right to a claim. In northern Alberta it was important that the program extended into March. Many farmers could not prove their difficulty because the crop was under the snow. Some 20,000 additional producers were able to take advantage of this program. We learned something as we went through that process. Surely we can put together something better than we have had in the past.
The Member asked how much the pay-out was for a farmer and he used the term $6.88 per acre. I do not think we worked out the exact amount per acre. The average pay-out per farmer was in the area of $3,800. That was assistance provided over and above insurance programs, such as the Western Grain Stabilization and others that zeroed in on the cost of production like the fuel subsidy program. This assistance, I know, was welcomed by many farmers even though, given commodity prices, it was not adequate to provide a very comfortable way of life over the last year for many of the families across the western Canada drought areas.
I agree that even though the Government and the provincial Governments are trying to be as sensitive and as flexible as possible, in the last year there were many difficulties. The review board, appointed to look at this whole problem in late April, examined the situation and allowed many others to participate, and that was important.
In April in the area of Athabasca, I was amazed to find a large group of farmers who were not aware that they could apply for an extension to disaster assistance, but we were able to get an extension by phoning the Department. I was pleased by the flexibility shown on the part of the PFRA at that time.
I am happy Members have asked for the papers, that they are going to be provided and that there is a real feeling we
Western Canada Drought
have to provide better assistance for drought and other natural disasters in the future.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Earlier today a special order of the House suspended the hour for Private Members' Business for Friday, June 20, 1986. Accordingly, I am instructing the table that the item of Private Members' Business scheduled for that day in the name of the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) be dropped to the bottom at the order of precedence.

Under Standing Order 52(2), the time allowed for consideration of this motion has now expired.
The Chair would like to indicate that in addition the Standing Orders allow at this time for a Minister of the Crown to speak for five minutes and for the mover to make an additional reply of five minutes after which the Chair will put the question.

If neither the Minister nor the mover of the motion wishes to speak at this time, the Chair will proceed to put the question.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a few minutes to remind the House that, on November 25, 1985, I introduced the following motion:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Excellency praying that she will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the report presented to the Prime Minister pertaining to the drought in Western Canada.

It has taken us almost six months to get to the point where we are today, six months of attempting to find out from the Government just what was in the report prepared by the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson). Since the Government has already indicated that it is willing to table the report, we no longer have to ask the question that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) was raising a minute ago as to whether the report existed or not. We already know the answer. There is some sort of a report that will be tabled in the House.
I only wish in the future when Hon. Members table motions for the production of documents, and these motions are tabled sometimes after documents are known to be ready to be distributed to all Hon. Members, that we will not have to wait for six months to get something that should be given to a Member for the asking.
I remind you, Mr. Speaker, of the commitments of the Conservative Party during the last election campaign when it said that the Conservatives would operate in such a way as to "ensure that access to information is implemented in the spirit and in fact." Of course the the Conservative Party was talking about the Access to Information Act. The principle is the same. If something is available within 30 days by going through access to information for people in the press and

June 16, 1986
Pine Hill Divinity Hall
others who wish to avail themselves of that process, I find it difficult to accept that an Hon. Member of this House would have to wait for six months, using the process of the House to obtain something that would take 30 days under an Act of this Parliament. 1 would submit that it would be far better if in the future the Government made it more expeditious to provide us with documents that can assist all Members of the House to do their work.
In conclusion, I thank Hon. Members who have spoken today and the Government for finally providing us with the documents for which we asked last November 25.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the Parties. I think you would find unanimous agreement of the House to pass Bill S-7, standing in the name of the Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil), through all stages. It would be sent to a Committee of the Whole House rather than a legislative committee as stated on the Order Paper. This matter would be disposed of by 7 p.m. this evening. If the matter is in fact disposed of before 7 o'clock p.m., we suggest that the House recess until 7 p.m. at which time we would resume with the business which was on the floor when Private Members' Business was called. I think you will find unanimous agreement of the House to proceed in that manner.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for what the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has suggested?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE BILLS


Lawrence I. O'Neil: that Bill S-7, an Act to amend the Act of Incorporation of Pine Hill Divinity Hall, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, be referred to Committee of the Whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the other two Parties for their agreement to allow speedy passage of Bill S-7. By way of explanation, this Bill is designed to amend the Act of incorporation of Pine Hill Divinity College in Halfiax. It is, in addition, designed to give the College greater flexibility with respect to the acquisition and disposition of property. Under
the existing Charter that power is limited. I move this motion on behalf of the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Mclnnes).


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself and my colleagues in the Liberal Party I wish to speak in favour of Bill S-7. It need not have lengthy debate in the House of Commons. The other House has discussed the Bill at some length. One of the purposes of this Bill is, as my hon. colleague in the Conservative Party has stated, to give a new French name to the college which will be College de theologie Pine Hill. Under the previous statute the college did not have a bilingual name.
I feel that this and the other measures in the Bill are very worth-while initiatives. They were brought to the floor of the other House by the Hon. Henry Hicks, Senator, representing the Province of Nova Scotia. My colleagues and I are in support of this Bill which was presented in the other House by our hon. colleague, a former Liberal Premier of that province. I take a moment to add that, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you would want me to under the circumstances.
In conclusion, I would like to reiterate the support of our caucus for Bill S-7, which was brought to the floor of the other House and returned to this House earlier this afternoon.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on this Bill to explain matters to my caucus. I simply want to point out that it is a private Bill, not a public Bill, and that it deals with the interests of a specific institution and not the public interest. It is interesting to note that we have to come back to the House of Commons to give a French name to the French version of an Act dealing with a specific institution. This is interesting. I hope that there will be a more effective way of dealing with such matters in the future. Could we not pass a public Bill to settle this type of issue once and for all to avoid wasting the time of the House?
The other provision of this Bill would authorize the college to purchase and donate property. At the present time, it can only donate its property to someone else for $1. However, it is necessary for the college to be able to sell and purchase property for it to prosper. We support this Bill. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I hope that, in the future, there will be laws that allow us to deal more effectively with this type of matter without wasting the time of the House of Commons.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
June 16, 1986


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Danis in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr.   O'Neil moved@: that the Bill be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr.   O'Neil moved@: that the Bill be read the third time and
passed.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to order made earlier this day, this House stands adjourned for 20 minutes until 7 o'clock tonight.
At 6.40 p.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.



SITTING RESUMED The House resumed at 7 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-96, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal PostSecondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977, be read the third time and passed.
John V. Nunziata: Questions or comments, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is a period for questions and comments, but the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille), who made the speech, is not in the House. Therefore, according to previous rulings by the Speaker, there will be no question and comment period. Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am glad we are back on the main business before the House. I realize that Private Members' Business is very important, but it was
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
said by a number of spokepersons here today, and unfortunately we have not heard much from the Government side, that this legislation is probably the single most significant piece of legislation to cross the desks of all Hon. Members in the last two years. I am very happy to see the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in the House because he will remember some of the statements he made back in his lowly days in opposition.
I think, for example, back to March 24, 1982, when the then opposition Member for Etobicoke Centre was speaking about the then Liberal Government's decision with respect to Established Programs Financing. At that time he had some pretty strong words to say about the importance of sustaining a level of federal funding that would permit our colleges and universities and our health system to flourish. He said:
Taking the action of unilaterally cutting the financing, which the government is now proposing, and then having some discussions with the provinces, surely puts the cart before the horse. We should be reversing this procedure.
Again, on March 23, 1982, in speaking about cut-backs to EPF transfers, the Minister said:
The only sign it shows of cutting spending is by shifting the burden of the established programs funding on to the provincial governments. The provinces are now moving into a deficit position, a position which will make it more difficult for them to finance this shift in spending... That is not co-operative federalism. That is predatory federalism and it will not and cannot work in this country.
Yet we see tonight in its typical ramrod approach the Government, under the alleged leadership of the self-same Minister of Finance, is planning to move a motion which, in a predatory fashion, will cut back future increases in Established Programs Financing to the provinces by some $8 billion.
Those of us who had an opportunity during the small break a few moments ago to watch the six o'clock news will know that in Ontario the issue of health care is uppermost in the minds of many Ontarians. The Ontario Government, following the lead of a unanimous resolution called the Canada Health Act in the federal Parliament, moved to exercise its authority in the province to ensure that it is not penalized by a $15 million cut in funds which would have resulted if the province had not banned extra billing. The previous Liberal federal Government set the lead when, with the unanimous support of the Conservatives and the NDP, a motion known as the Canada Health Act was passed. That motion said to every single Canadian man and woman, regardless of provincial or territorial Governments, that they have a right to accessible and free health care in Canada.


Ian Deans: Not free.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I think what highlights the history of concern in Canada is to look at the health care system as it has developed in the U.S., for example. There it has developed in a kind of piecemeal private sector fashion. Here in Canada we have developed a universally accessible system for all Canadians. Unfortunately, not only has the federal Government been strangely silent on the question of universal access in the Province of Ontario, but again it has said nothing when the Canadian Medical Association suggested to its members

June 16, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
across the country outside Ontario that they not submit bills to the Ontario Health Insurance Plan, but bill patients directly. We have not heard a peep from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), whose job it is to protect each and every Canadian.
If I am travelling in Manitoba, Alberta, or British Columbia, as an Ontarian I have the right to full access to services. In aiding and abetting the action we saw on the six o'clock news where medical doctors were accusing the Liberal Government of Ontario of neo-Nazism, carrying histrionics to an extreme, we see the federal Progressive Conservative Government following the lead of its counterparts in Ontario and remaining strangely silent. It has sat by while the provincial leader of the Conservative Party assists the doctors in trying to contravene a unanimous law passed by the federal Parliament under the leadership of the Liberal Government.
Those of you who were here in this Chamber at that time will remember the fight Monique Begin had as the Minister of Health. She took the fight to the people and said that she fundamentally believed that Canadian men and women support the notion of equal access to quality health care. Yet we see tonight not only has this Conservative Government sat back and remained silent on one of the most important health issues facing the Province of Ontario, at the same time we see with this insidious legislation that it will be further cutting back on health and post-secondary education budgets across the country. In Ontario, as an example, a quick calculation will show that with the $8.1 billion being cut, more than $2 billion will be taken out of the health care and education budgets in Ontario. As a matter of fact, the provincial Liberal Government will be faced with having to recoup almost $3 billion in lost funds as a result of this Government's move to pay the deficit on the back of the provinces, the sick, and students who want to pursue post-secondary education but who may not have the financial means.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that what we are dealing with this evening is the issue of universal access, not only to health care, but also to post-secondary education. We know that there is now such a crisis nationally in post-secondary education that, a few weeks ago, a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada stated that he was afraid that our system would continue to deteriorate if the federal Government maintained its intention to reduce its funding by $8 billion as proposed in this Bill.

"Universities desperate for money, Judge says". "Canada is on the verge of becoming a second-class nation because of a tragic under-funding of universities by federal and provincial Governments, Chief Justice Brian Dickson of the Supreme Court of Canada says". In an uncharacteristically blunt attack, Dickson told graduating students of the University of British Columbia-and we know the situation in British Columbia has not been a pleasant one for students of postsecondary education-"Canada must have good universities with outstanding teachers and world class research facilities. Second class funding of universities will inevitably lead to second class teachers, second class students and, ultimately, a second class nation." In this particular motion, in this particular Bill-

In Bill C-96, the federal Government is suddenly asking the provinces to pay, and Quebec will lose about $3 billion. Ontario will lose $2.5 billion. The amounts vary for the other provinces, but the effect will always be the same. We shall have to reduce our health care budget and the funding of our colleges and universities.
Mr. Speaker, I think that Judge Dickson was right to say that, if we continue to reduce university budgets, if we continue to make cuts in our education budgets, we shall end up with a second class nation.
Let us consider the work done by the previous Liberal Governments. They have provided Canada with a health care system unparalleled in the world. I think Canadian men and women are proud of it. We are aware that a few problems remain just the same.
In the excellent speech he made earlier, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) suggested that we might start dealing with the system's problems by referring to the prospective analysis made by Mr. Lalonde over ten years ago.
It is not merely a financing problem, as claimed by Ontario physicians, but also a matter of properly using our medical resources. In my opinion, this Government's challenge is not only to make cuts for the purpose of possibly reducing the deficit or transfering to the provinces its budgetary burden, but to move forward and show leadership to help enhance our health care system in Canada.

I do not see that leadership at the moment. What I see is a Finance Minister who is intent on passing along his deficit problems on to the backs of the poor and on to the backs of our senior citizens, who will undoubtedly pay the price with restricted hospital services and restricted access to medical care.
He is intent on paying the price on the backs of our young people who will find themselves with a situation in the nineties that was all too prevalent in the fifties, when only the children of the very wealthy had an opportunity to pursue a postsecondary education. The sixties and the seventies in Canada saw some tremendous social and economic progress. Two of the highlights of that period are, indeed, a first class world class universally accessible health care system, and an educational system at the post-secondary level which has been
June 16, 1986__________ COMMONS DEBATES
admired by foreign governments and foreign visitors from across the world.
With this particular motion, which seeks to gut to the tune of more than $8 billion the inflationary protection that would have been accorded to provincial Governments to deal with the issues of post-secondary education and health, we see that the Government is not committed to providing leadership in these areas, but simply passing the buck.
Most of us will remember that when the Minister tabled his last Budget, he said, and I think it rang well throughout the chamber, "the buck stops here". Well, it is clear that the buck does not stop here. The Minister in his statement said that, in fact, the buck stops here. Quite clearly that is not the case, and that is why after debate upon debate I feel compelled to move a motion. That motion reads as follows:
That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor:
Bill C-96, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Care Contributions Act, 1977, be not now read a third time, but that it be read a third time this day six months hence.
That is my motion, and I believe it speaks to the heart of the problem we are facing.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair finds the motion in order. Debate will proceed on the amendment. In the meantime, questions and comments.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I assume I am asking questions of the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps)?
You will note that we have been in the House since 11 a.m. and, with the exception of Private Members' Hour, we have been debating this particular piece of legislation. It is now approximately 7.20. Therefore, we have been debating this for about seven hours. You and I have both participated in this debate since it began today. We all know that there have been other occasions to debate this particular piece of legislation.
In the seven hours that we have been discussing and debating Bill C-96, not one single, solitary Conservative Member of Parliament has risen to make submissions. Not one single, solitary Conservative Member of Parliament has asked the following question, with the exception of the Member for York East (Mr. Redway). The question, although intelligently put, was more intelligently answered by my colleague, the Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin). The question is: Why have the Conservative Members of Parliament not risen in their seat to defend Bill C-96?
As I pointed out earlier this day, it is obvious that Bil C-96 is indefensible. If it were, why then would the Conservative Members of Parliament not stand in their places to try to defend this Bill? That would lead one to conclude that the Conservative Members of Parliament who have been present today, and there are not many of them, do not support the Bill. So much for parliamentary reform.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
I would submit that by not standing up and speaking to this legislation, the Conservative Members of Parliament are doing a very serious disservice to their constituents and, indeed, to their respective communities.
Liberal speaker after Liberal speaker has pointed out the inadequacies of this particular piece of legislation. They have pointed out that this legislation is regressive, it attacks postsecondary education in Canada, it attacks health care in Canada, and yet our submissions, our pleas are falling on deaf ears.
The Government is intent to pass this piece of legislation notwithstanding that group after group, and individual after individual at committee has spoken out against this legislation.
I would like to ask my friend and colleague from the riding of Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) to indicate to the House her views as to why the Conservative Members of Parliament opposite are not speaking out. I note that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has just entered the Chamber. I hope my friend, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), will comment on this legislation that was introduced by the Minister and join me in challenging him to stand up during this most important debate and tell us why he believes that this legislation should carry.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Member for York South- Weston (Mr. Nunziata) is right on. We have not heard from government Members and I think the reason they have remained strangely silent on this Bill is that they are embarrassed by it. They recognize that what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has done in one fell swoop is pass along an $8 billion problem to the provinces and territories. They know that it will result in a situation where health care will be offered on an unequal basis to the citizens throughout our country. The educational system at the post-secondary level will deteriorate from province to province and we will see a greater concentration of regional problems than we have already seen during the course of the present Government.
A third cause of some embarrassment to the Prime Minister and the Conservative cabinet Ministers who are telling the provinces that they should tighten their belts to the tune of $8 billion is that according to the most recent news from Ottawa, Conservative cabinet Ministers spent 53 per cent more on their personal staff last year than the Liberals did in their last full year in office. In fact, those figures do not include the staff of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) whose budget has jumped almost 50 per cent over the two year period, to $6.5 million. When one considers the number of political staff, the budget for the political staff of Conservative cabinet Ministers is $13 million compared with $8.6 million under the previous Trudeau Government.
I too would be somewhat embarrassed about going to the provinces and telling senior citizens and young people that they will have to tighten their belts and pay more for health and education while the Government is increasing its own personal

June 16, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
political staff by 50 per cent to 53 per cent, depending on the Minister. It is the same Government that is singing austerity across the country and telling senior citizens that they will have to accept cut-backs in the increase to their old age pensions and telling middle income and poor families that they will have cut-backs in the amount of family allowance they would have received because they are doing their bit to fight the deficit.
The deficit is being fought, but it is not being fought in the offices of cabinet Ministers or the Office of the Prime Minister, who has achieved an increase of almost 50 per cent in his personal political office staff. Furthermore, those figures do not include the cost of shuttling his film team from coast to coast in Hercules aircraft so that we may have capture for posterity the picture of our Prime Minister as he travels from West Coast to East Coast. According to the press reports, we see in one fell swoop that one particular junket cost the taxpayers approximately $40,000 in hotel costs alone, and we expect that the cost of the Hercules in the short term is probably closer to the $1 million that was quoted in last week's press. If I had that record I think I would also be a little embarrassed to speak out.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resumimg debate.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to continue my submissions with respect to Bill C-96, but I am delighted that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has entered the Chamber. I know that his staff has advised him about the nature of the debate that has occurred today. No doubt, the Minister is deeply chagrined by the submissions made on this side of the House.
Now that he is back in the House, I would like to ask him what he meant when he said in the House, on March 23, 1982, as reported at page 15758 of Hansard:
The only sign-
The federal Government:
-shows of cutting spending is by shifting the burden of the established programs funding on to the provincial governments. The provinces are now moving into a deficit position, a position which will make it more difficult for them to finance this shift in spending.
The Minister went on to say:
That is not co-operative federalism. That is predatory federalism, and it will not and cannot work in this country.
I am sure that the Minister recalls his words. He was speaking four short years ago. What a difference four years makes. What a difference it makes to cross the aisle of the House of Commons.
Given that Bill C-96 has been presented for third reading today, one might question the Minister's sincerity. Of course, Members cannot directly question the sincerity, the integrity or credibility of a particular Minister of the Crown, but Canadians are asking tonight what the Minsiter of Finance meant four years ago when he said that predatory federalism will not and cannot work in this country. What did he mean
four years ago when he said that it was unfair for the federal Government to transfer the task of deficit reduction on to the backs of the provinces in Canada? Obviously, the Minister of Finance was singing one tune in March, 1982 and is singing another tune today as Minister of Finance. Is it any wonder that the Conservative Government has literally and absolutely frittered away the support that it obtained in the election campaign of 1984? One of the reasons why the Government has so dramatically lost the mandate that was given to it two short years ago is credibility and trust.
Let me quote the Minister of Finance again, this time on March 24, 1982. He said, as quoted at page 15774 of Hansard'.
Taking the action of unilaterally cutting the financing, which the Government is now proposing-
Of course, he was referring to the Liberal Government:
-and then having some discussions with the provinces, surely puts the cart before the horse. We should be reversing this procedure.
That is what the Minister of Finance said four years ago when he was in opposition. However, when he became Minister of Finance he decided to cut $8 million in federal transfer payments to the provinces for post-secondary education and health care.
What happened to the consultative process that the Minister spoke of when he was in opposition four years ago? What happened to the consultative process that was promised during the last election campaign? What happened to all those lofty pronouncements made in the days and weeks following the election in September, 1984? The Minister of Finance and others on the government side, including the Prime Minister, stood up in the House time and time again and said, with considerable satisfaction and considerable sincerity as we thought at the time, that because of the election of the Conservative Government Canada had entered into a new era, an era of national reconciliation.
The Minister said that Canada, in terms of federal-provincial relations, had entered a new phase where the provinces would be consulted before the federal Government took any action affecting the provinces. What did the Government do with respect to Bill C-96, given its promises during the election campaign and shortly after? Did the Minister consult with the provincial Governments and provincial Treasurers?


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Yes.


John V. Nunziata: I think not.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Well, you are wrong.


John V. Nunziata: Was there a new ara of national reconciliation? One can hardly speak of national reconciliation when each and every one of the provincial Governments in Canada vigorously objected to this legislation when it was introduced in the House. Each and every one of those provincial Premiers,
June 16, 1986

Conservative and Liberal, have objected to the legislation along with hundreds of thousands of Canadians and dozens of special interest groups that have appeared before committee. However, the Government is intent on ramming through the legislation notwithstanding the devastating impact it will have on health care and post-secondary education in Canada.
Canadians are asking about the federal Government's priorities because it appears obvious, given its track record over the last two years, that the Conservative Government and the Minister of Finance, in particular, have misplaced priorities. The Minister of Finance of the Conservative Government is able to bail out banks in western Canada. The Government has been able to give away millions and billions of dollars to the wealthy taxpayers in Canada. It has been able to find sufficient moneys to give a $125,000 cash bonanza to Canadians, yet it is asking the provincial Governments to cut back in those two very crucial areas of health care and postsecondary education.
One would think, given the haste with which the Government is progressing with the Bill, that it has not considered the impact. Either it has not considered the impact of Bill C-96 or it simply does not care.
The impact will be devastating to the provincial Governments. The Government of Canada, through the Minister of Finance, is asking the provincial Governments to find an additional $8 billion over the next five years in order to maintain the quality of health care and post-secondary education that Canadians have learned to appreciate and expect. What it is simply doing is transferring the problem of deficit reduction from the federal Government to the provincial Government, but in so doing, it is attacking two very crucial areas. We in the Liberal Party will not sit idly by as the Government attacks the disadvantaged in society. Over the last two years, we have found that it has tried to reduce the deficit on the backs of the disadvantaged and the senior citizens, and all because of this paranoia with respect to the deficit.
We in the Liberal Party recognize, of course, that the deficit is a problem; but we believe that if efforts are made to control or manage or reduce the deficit, then it must be done in a fair and equitable way. It is not fair to try to reduce the deficit on the backs of those least able to defend themselves, but that is the Conservative way of thinking, that is the Conservative philosophy. They believe, as Conservatives, that the bottom line is the balance sheet. They believe that running the country is like running a business, that at the end of the so-called fiscal year, they must balance the books or show a profit. We in the Liberal Party believe that Governments are in business to serve the people, and we are here to ensure the best interests of the people of Canada. We as a Government will ultimately not be judged by whether the balance sheet balances at the end of the fiscal year. We as parliamentarians, as legislators, will ultimately be governed by how we treat the disadvantaged in society, the poor, the disabled, the unemployed, the young. That is how we as a Government will be judged. We are not here to serve the interests of Bay Street. We are not here to
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
run the Government as one would run a business. Of course, we must be fiscally responsible in terms of our spending. However, if we wanted to, as a Parliament, we could eliminate the deficit overnight.


Mr. Forrestall:: How would we do that?


John V. Nunziata: That is possible, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member from Nova Scotia sitting opposite laughs and asks, "How could we do it?" It is quite simple. If one wants to eliminate the deficit overnight, all one must do is to eliminate family allowance payments in Canada, eliminate old age security payments, eliminate unemployment insurance, and not only would the deficit be reduced-


An Hon. Member:: Just call in tax deferments.


John V. Nunziata: -but a surplus would also be created. However, that is not what Canadians want. Canadians want and expect an unemployment insurance scheme in Canada. Canadians want and expect family allowance payments in Canada to assist those who are less fortunate than us. Senior citizens want and need old age security benefits. Canadians have come to expect and appreciate certain government programs that have enhanced, over the years, and will continue to enhance, the quality of life in Canada; so, we do not eliminate benefits like unemployment insurance or family allowance or old age security payments in order to reduce or eliminate the deficit.
To a large extent, the reason we have a deficit is that we have those very worth-while programs in Canada. The Conservative Government is absolutely paranoid with respect to the deficit. It is obviously prepared to do anything in order to reduce the deficit. In so doing, it is sending some very sad and unfortunate messages, to the young in Canada, for example. We have found, over the last two years, that the Conservative Government has cut a number of programs affecting the young. It slashed Kitamavik a number of months ago in order to reduce the deficit. Well, what type of message does that send to our young people? What kind of message, we ask, does that send to the hundreds of thousands of young people who are unemployed and unable to find employment? The young unemployed in Canada have been called the lost generation, and it is mainly due to the actions of the Conservative Government. What is important is to give the young in society an opportunity for the future. It is important to give them hope. However, the Government is not giving the young in Canada any hope, and without hope, there is no future.
What the Government is doing with Bill C-96 is telling the young people of Canada that post-secondary education is no longer important to the federal Government, or that it is no longer as important as the federal deficit. If it were as important as the federal deficit, the Government would not be cutting $8 billion in federal transfer payments, knowing full well that the effect of this cut over the next five years will be to

June 16, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
decrease the high quality of post-secondary education in Canada.
As I submitted earlier, we have a quality of post-secondary education and health care that is second to none in the world. We have a health care system and a post-secondary education system that is the envy of many countries and many jurisdictions. What the Government is doing by its actions through Bill C-96 is rendering our first-class system of health care and our first-class system of post-secondary education second-class, all in the name of reducing the almighty deficit.
Many individuals have spoken out over the last number of months with respect to Bill C-96. They have spoken out as well about the desperate need for money for our post-secondary institutions. In late May, Mr. Justice Brian Dickson, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, expressed his very deep concern with declining funding for post-secondary education in Canada. He said:
It has been said by many people that education is too important to be left to educators. That may be true. But it is also true that education is too important to be left to Ministers of Finance.
In effect, what the Chief Justice is saying is that he does not trust the Minister of Finance to deal adequately with education and that, given the choice ,the Minister of Finance would rather decrease the deficit than increase the quality of postsecondary education. Mr. Justice Dickson indicated that Canada is on the verge of becoming a second-class nation because of the tragic under-funding of universities by federal and provincial Governments. Bill C-96 will simply exacerbate the problem.
I note that Your Honour is indicating that my time is up.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John V. Nunziata: In conclusion, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) has moved a motion to suspend third reading of this Bill for six months. It is a worth-while amendment to the main motion before us. It will give the Government an opportunity to reconsider this ill-advised piece of legislation. It will give members of the Government an opportunity to try to persuade the Minister of Finance to understand the negative impacts of Bill C-96. It will give all Canadians more opportunity to try to persuade the Minister of Finance that this measure is unfair, unjust and inequitable. I urge Conservative Members opposite in the remaining few hours of this debate to have the courage to stand up and tell their Minister of Finance that this piece of legislation is ill-conceived legislation and that it ought to be withdrawn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins).


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) a question. How will these cuts over the next six years affect the total budgets and actions of the Government of Ontario?


J. Michael Forrestall: Author, author!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I note that the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) is much better at speaking from his seat these days than he is from his feet.


J. Michael Forrestall: Author, author!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: The author is standing right here before you.
The Hon. Member mentioned many areas that will suffer, but he confined his remarks mainly to the areas of postsecondary education and medical care.
If the provinces are to turn around and find a total of $8 billion to make up the amount of money that the Government will not be transferring to them in the next few years for medicare and post-secondary education, then where will they find this money? In what areas will they have to cut back in order to find this money?


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. friend and colleague for his question. It is an excellent question-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John V. Nunziata: -that is being asked by every provincial Treasurer in Canada and by every provincial Government in Canada.
I note that Conservative Members are taking particular delight in heckling. Yet they do not have the courage to stand up in their places to speak. At least Members on this side of the House-


Mr. Horner:: They jump over their seats!


John V. Nunziata: -stand up to express a point of view and to express an opinion with respect to Bill C-96. All Conservative Members of Parliament can do is to sit opposite and yap all night long. I simply consider the source when I hear some of the comments being made by Members opposite.
However, in reply to the question from my colleague, over the next five years the Province of Ontario will receive close to $2 billion less in federal transfer payments for post-secondary education and health care. In fiscal year 1986-87, there will be $114 million less. In the following fiscal year, 1987-88, the figure is $243.4 million. In the following fiscal year it will be close to $400 million less. In the fiscal year, following that, it will be over $500 million less, for a total of $2.9 billion.
If this legislation passes, and we hope that it will not, the provinces will have a number of very tough decisions to make. The Province of Ontario, for example, will find itself with $3 billion less than it otherwise would have had if the Government of Canada and the Minister of Finance had kept the commitment of the federal Government and if it had not reneged and breached a very fundamental agreement with the provinces. The provincial Governments will have to cut health care services, cut back in the area of post-secondary education or
June 16, 1986

they will have to raise taxes. Thank goodness for the Liberal Government at Queens Park. We know that the Liberal Government there is committed to an extremely high level of health care and post-secondary education.
I note that my time is up. In conclusion, it is obvious that Canadians in every region will suffer as a result of this regressive, harsh and cruel legislation. No institution will be spared the axe that the Minister of Finance has brought down on the budgets of provincial Governments. I hope that the Minister of Finance will conclude after the debate is over that this particular Bill should be withdrawn.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I noted that the Hon. Member for York South-Weston commented, as did the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins), on the fact that a number of Conservative Members are very happy to speak from their seats but do not want to rise to their feet. I wonder if the Hon. Member for York South-Weston could comment on the words spoken by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) back in the olden days when he was in opposition.
During the time of the six and five program, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) and the Hon. Member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Clark) all spoke out very strongly in the House. Specifically, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South talked about the changes in EPF funding at that time as a result of the six and five program as being a breach of contract, a breach of agreement and even more than that, a breach of an understanding of where the country is going.


J. Michael Forrestall: That's the mess you left us with.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, we hear the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) speak time and time again from his seat and he is doing so again. Why does he not rise-


J. Michael Forrestall: I know what I'm talking about and you don't.


Sheila Maureen Copps: -to allow the people of Canada to hear what he has to say on this issue rather than heckling from his seat in a banshee-like manner.


John V. Nunziata: She's sober.


J. Michael Forrestall: What was that comment? That's the second time, John, and that's enough.


Sheila Maureen Copps: For instance, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, when talking about the six and five program, said that the consequences may not be readily discernible to the federal Government, but to the thousands of young Canadians in post-secondary institutions and to the hundreds
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
of people who staff our community colleges and universities, the consequences are very clear and in fact are frightening.
I would like the Hon. Member for York South-Weston to comment on the words of these two Hon. Members who, when in opposition, had the courage to rise to speak out, but now that they are in government are strangely silent on an issue which will affect the transfer of $8 billion in federal funds to post-secondary education and health services across Canada.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, is it any surprise that those two Hon. Members, and Conservative Members in general, are not speaking out? When they were in opposition, they made quite a number of statements by which they were not prepared to stand or to defend. Now that they are in government, a silence has fallen over the Conservative benches. None of them have the courage to speak to this legislation.
That leads me to question why those Hon. Members are here in the House of Commons. What purpose do Conservative Members of Parliament serve in the House of Commons? They are certainly doing a disservice to the House and their constituents by not participating in this debate. If they do not agree with what we are saying, rather than sitting in their seats and yapping like dogs in heat, they should have the courage to rise. I would respect them if they rose in the House and expressed a point of view. Even though I might disagree with what they say, I would respect them for having the courage to rise to defend what they are doing. However, not one of those guys across the aisle is prepared to rise to defend Bill C-96. They are a bunch of cowards.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, earlier I quoted the statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in the House on March 23, 1982, and indeed I think it bears repeating tonight. On March 23, 1982, the Minister of Finance said the following:
The only sign-
The federal government.
-shows of cutting spending is by shifting the burden of the established programs funding on to the provincial governments. The provinces are now moving into a deficit position, a position which will make it more difficult for them to finance this shift in spending. .. That is not co-operatie federalism. That is predatory federalism and it will not and cannot work in this country.
I noticed that as I was quoting him, the Minister of Finance left the House. I hope he will return. The other point I wanted to make-


J. Michael Forrestall: You're the only Liberal in the House. [Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance (Mr. Vincent) rises on a point of order.


Mr. Vincent:: Mr. Speaker, because the Hon. Member has sat long enough in the House-maybe too long-he should know our Standing Orders. If he knew them, Mr. Speaker, he

June 16, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
would be aware that he is not allowed to make reference to hon. members being present or absent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Elon. Parliamentary Secretary's point is well taken. The Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipis-sing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins) has the floor. Debate.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, there is another statement that was made, and I do not have it here, but I know it so well that I do not need to read it. That is the promise the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) made to several thousand people in my constituency during the last election campaign dealing with the Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. community at Chalk River.


Robert Nesbitt Horner: What's that got to do with it?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: The relevancy is this: we are dealing with a Government that is lacking in credibility because it makes statements and then turns around and does the exact opposite. Today the Minister of Finance is doing the exact opposite of what he stated in the House in 1982. He is turning around and doing the very same thing he said Conservatives would not do as a Government.
The Prime Minister told Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. that not only would he retain its level of funding but indeed he would attempt to improve it and allow for further research and development. What did the Prime Minister do? The Minister of Finance helped him live up to his statement by cutting $100 million out of the budget of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. Not only that but it is going to end up costing 550 positions-


J. Michael Forrestall: What is the relevancy?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Education enters into high-tech industries. If they wanted to be relevant, Mr. Speaker, government Members would not have made any one of those 338 promises that were made during the last election campaign. Even the promises they made not to do things are now being broken.
The Minister of Finance did indeed say in the House loud and clear and with a great deal of pride that the buck stops here. However, the buck stops here for the wrong reason. The buck stops here because the federal Government is shifting its responsibilities on to the shoulders of provincial and municipal Governments. That is wrong.


J. Michael Forrestall: Do you want to know where it started, Len?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Instead, they have no trouble whatsoever, if I may continue to speak above the din of those who speak from their seats-


J. Michael Forrestall: It goes back to Otto Lang and some of the others.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: In all fairness, Mr. Speaker, I think you should be calling for a little order here.


J. Michael Forrestall: You don't like that, do you, my dear friend? You don't like the truth. It hurts a little bit.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: They bail out the banks to the tune of $1 billion. They cut the provinces back by $8 billion over the next six years. They break their promises to the provinces and to Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. They slash the National Research Council. To a very large degree they are great educational and research facilities.
What is the Minister of Finance doing with medicare? He is cutting back on federal contributions to the provinces. I am one of those people who would be quite happy to see the federal Government being responsible for the medicare program across the country, if such an amendment to our Constitution were possible. Then the buck would have to stop here, and the Government would have to carry its load for the provinces of Canada.
Other speakers have mentioned that this piece of legislation will create different levels of medicare across Canada. To a large degree the quality of medicare at the provincial level depends upon the financial ability of the provinces to pay. However, the federal Government has levied heavier taxes than we have seen in years, if indeed ever, on to individual Canadians. It has levied taxes on small business, and those taxes will grow. In the crunch, the federal Government has actually levied more taxes upon the very sources upon which the provinces will in turn have to depend to obtain more money to operate the medicare and post-secondary educational systems. They will have to make up for the money the federal Government will not transfer to them in the next six years. For example, the Province of Ontario will lose nearly $3 billion in transfer payments between now and 1992. It is passing the buck to the provinces by forcing them to increase their taxes.
I predict that the cut-back in transfer payments to the provinces and to the territories will mean, somewhere down the road, it will be necessary to appoint a commission similar to the Rowell-Sirois Commission which was appointed in 1937. The Rowell-Sirois Commission studied in depth federal-provincial financial arrangements in Canada and came up with some excellent recommendations. It is probably the best quality report in this area which has ever been produced in Canada; many reforms came out of it. The day will come when we will rise again in the House of Commons to debate amendments to Bill C-96 as a result of an in depth report of a future commission on federal-provincial financial arrangements with the provinces. I also believe that it will be necessary to amend the legislation to balance provincial finanances which are being destroyed by the Bill before us today.
Many students are graduating from our universities today. In fact, many older people are returning to university for additional training in technical areas, arts, professions, and trades. They realize that they need additional upgrading and training. Indeed, there are those who will need future retraining in our educational system. The responsibility to educate all
June 16, 1986

Canadians places a large burden upon our provinces. However, we in the Parliament of Canada have a responsibility for employment. The provinces will tell us that they have a share in that responsibility as well. If we are to accept responsibility for the employment of Canadians, it would be irresponsible for us not to put enough federal funds into education to keep our institutions going, to keep providing quality teaching, and to put quality students out in the world who can face the challenges of today. If there are to be jobs for these people when they leave university, then we will need development, development, and more development.
There will be fewer jobs in Canada because the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion has been cut to shreds. It does not have the capacity to produce local industries to help regions as it has in the past. The Government is more interested in building up the greater metropolitan areas or cities of Canada than it is interested in the regions of Canada. If the Government continues with this procedure, we will continue to be a nation in existence 100 miles north of the Canadian-American border. We have to do better than that.
One of the main concerns raised by the provinces in this debate was that the federal Government should review its priorities. On the one hand it reimbursed the uninsured depositors of failed banks to the tune of $1 billion. It also exempted capital gains from taxation, which favoured the wealthy. It gradually stopped taxing oil and gas in the producing provinces and increased RRSP deductions. On the other hand it is cutting back on health care and post-secondary education.
Many people realize that Bill C-96 is one of the most serious issues to have come before the House of Commons. I am only sorry that there will not be more debate on it today. It shows that the Government with its huge majority is willing to ramrod the legislation through the House and that it could not care less about provincial medicare programs or post-secondary education. If there ever was a time in Canadian history when educational institutions needed considerable money to keep pace with modern day technology and to update their institutions, it is now. It is a very costly process but a very necessary process in terms of investment in the future of the country.
Earlier today I mentioned that the biggest issue at stake in the Bill is the lack of credibility of the Minister of Finance. In the past he placed statements on the record of the House, and then he turned around and did the very thing he said he would not do. At a time when the Government is on everyone's back asking them to save money and to cut back, at a time when it gives less money to provincial educational and medicare programs, it is flying Hercules aircraft with camera crews to make movies of the Prime Minister. It is trying to advertise at public expense in order to wallpaper over the major problems its financial policies are indeed creating.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
The Conservatives promised the provinces one of the greatest honeymoons in Canadian history if they were ever elected to power. Once elected to power, they turned on the provinces. One of the first things they did was to cut transfer payments to the provinces. They are not gaining anything, and the sad part of it is that the country is not gaining anything by this process because someone will have to pay the bill. If it is not the federal Government then it will be the provinces, and if the provinces cannot afford to pay then it will fall on the municipalities, and if they cannot do so then the local taxpayers and the municipalities will have to pay higher taxes on property. It goes right down the line. There is no stopping. Contrary to what the Minister of Finance said, the buck does not stop here, it just sinks to the lowest level of Government in Canada.
We have seen and I have seen personally the promises made by the Government that have affected my own region of Canada drastically. I have mentioned the cut-backs in the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, a Department which has had a great success story in eastern Ontario and in many areas of western Quebec. We have seen the Prime Minister welsh on his promise to retain funding for one of our greatest success stories, the high-tech industry in Canada, Atomic Energy of Canada. One of the Prime Minister's first acts was to cut its funding by $100 million. Today, in all the discussions about nuclear energy, I often wonder how many people realize that the cobalt therapy cancer treatment unit was developed at Chalk River, Ontario. There are several of those units and they are doing tremendous work. Medical radioisotopes are being produced by Atomic Energy in great amounts and are being sold abroad. There are many applications to the industry which many people do not realize because there is an emotional debate going on about nuclear energy itself.
It is unfortunate that that type of debate should be heightened by the Chernobyl accident because that incident has no relationship whatsoever to the operations of the Candu reactors in Canada. It is unfortunate that in this day of higher education and social services such as medicare the real nuclear debate in nuclear arms is leading people to turn away momentarily from the nuclear industry because they are so concerned about the international scene. With advanced education and with more money provided to our universities to train engineers nuclear energy will become more important for the future and be much better understood. Hopefully by that time, Mr. Speaker, we will have a Government that has some credibility, a Government upon which we can depend to keep its word. The Prime Minister and his friend Ronald Reagan will have lots of time after 1988 to make movies because they will not be there.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I have two questions that I would like to put to the Hon. Member, but I would like to comment first. As you know, Sir, as the Hon. Member knows and as I know this is the thirteenth day of debate on this one

June 16, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
Bill. The Bill has gone through first reading, second reading and we are now in third reading in this House. The Bill was also discussed in committee. On second reading the Bill had 10 days of debate. Ninety speeches were given in those 10 days of debate on second reading. We are now on third reading and this is the third day of debate. The Hon. Member who just spoke was the thirty-second speaker during those three days.


Sheila Maureen Copps: And we have more.


Alan Redway: On this Bill so far we have had 13 days of debate in the House and 122 speakers. The Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing (Mr. Hopkins) has spoken twice in the debate today. First, could he point out to me one submission, one comment, one iota of information he gave in his second speech that was different in any way from the first speech he made in the House today on the same topic on the same Bill?
Second, the Hon. Member talked about credibility, fairness and changes in funding to the provinces. Could he tell me whether he believes that it is more fair for the Government of Canada to increase transfer payments for health and postsecondary education to the provinces, as we are talking about in this Bill, by 7 per cent, annually when the inflation rate was 12 per cent annually, as was done by the former Liberal Government of which he was a member and supporter, or is it more fair to increase both payments by 5 per cent when inflation is running at only 4 per cent as is being done through this legislation? Those are the two questions I have for the Hon. Member. First, can he point to one single piece of information in his second speech that he did not give us in his first? Second, is it not more fair that we should be increasing payments to the provinces at a greater rate than inflation rather than a lesser rate the way his Government did?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I thought when the Hon. Member rose that he was going to ask me a very difficult question. I want to thank him for the almost free ride. He asked me what I said different tonight to what I said earlier today. I mentioned a number of things tonight. I predicted that with this new federal-provincial financial system in operation it would only be a matter of time before we would be appointing another very high profile commission, in Canada such as the Rowell-Sirois Commission which was appointed in 1937 after five years of Government by R. B. Bennett.
I mentioned many good pieces of legislation and the reforms that came out of that commission. I suppose it was a matter of some concern to the Hon. Member on the Government side that I brought the Prime Minister's credibility into the debate again tonight. I make no apologies for that. I will continue to bring the Prime Minister's credibility and lack of it into every speech I make as long as I am in this House. I will do that because he made a promise to all my constituents on which he turned a complete flip-flop. The Minister of Finance made a complete flip-flop on the statements he made in this House, as demonstrated by the Bill we are considering today.
We all fully realize that you cannot apply a general rate of inflation to medicare and post-secondary education. Both medicare and post-secondary education costs in the country normally increase more quickly than the regular rate of inflation. I do not think the Hon. Member is looking at this very realistically. Over the next six years the Government will take $8 billion away from the provinces of Canada.
The Member obviously supports that action. His constituents will be complaining to him that they are paying higher property taxes because their municipalities cannot afford to pay the bills any more because the provincial Government has to put more of its money into post-secondary education and medicare. There is not a government supporter in the House who should complain one bit when any provincial Government increases taxes after supporting this legislation. They are in fact forcing the provinces to increase their tax bases. The Member's question underlines what every government Member is thinking about, that is the bottom line, which is what obviously counts to them rather than the humanitarian aspects.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I appreciated some of the very personal comments that the Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins) made with respect to the broken promises of the Government in his area. I would like him to elaborate in one specific area. I have a number of relatives in the great and good town of Eganville in the Ottawa Valley. I know that the Valley is presently facing some very unique problems with respect to the need for health care services and, in particular, the need for chronic care services. Some of the smaller communities of Ontario have aging populations relative to other parts of the province. Could the Member tell us what effect he thinks the cut-backs in health care will have, particularly in the more isolated communities like Eganville which have a very large elderly population?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for her question. She obviously understands rural Canada a little better than some of the authors of this legislation. Hospitals such as those located in Barrys Bay, Deep River, Mattawa, Renfrew and the two in Pembroke are fortunate to have a Liberal Government in Ontario that is looking after them extremely well. The Minister of Education is our provincial member and he understands the situation very well. Recently he was able to open new facilities at one of those hospitals.
The new Government in Ontario has introduced, for the first time, a helicopter ambulance service which will be very useful in rural areas such as that. People in my area are saying how different it is with the new Government in Ontario, the popularity of which is sky-high and which is doing a fine job even though it is a minority Government. The Government in Ottawa has the biggest majority in Canadian history and cannot seem to get its act together to do anything right. Its credibility is slipping away more and more as it deals in legislation such as that before us today.
June 16, 1986

I would like to make one last comment to my Conservative friend who questioned me a while ago. Although this debate has gone on for several days, if he figured it out he would probably find that it would average out to about $1 billion a day that provincial Governments are going to lose through this legislation. It is no wonder the Government does not want us to discuss it.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I suggest that the Hon. Member started to debate at five minutes to eight.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I did not get the point of order.


Mr. Rossi:: That's not a point of order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: We didn't call quorum when you only had three Members in the House so you had better be nice.


J. Michael Forrestall: Do your thing, Sheila.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I started at five to eight and it is now 27 minutes after eight, but other people have spoken in between and asked rather lengthy questions so I am quite in order, contrary to what the Hon. Member said.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is willing to give 30 seconds to the Hon. Member to conclude. We will then proceed with debate.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I simply want to conclude by saying that I hope my Conservative colleague who questioned me first is not suggesting that a Bill which deals with this amount of money should be pushed through Parliament quickly. That shows a total lack of confidence in Parliament. I do not think that should be the case at all. Members should be allowed to discuss this. When the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) was on this side of the House, he always said that money went through the House too fast. He said he still believes that and I am glad because we feel that we should debate issues which deal with large amounts of money in which the futures of every province and the territories of the country are involved. As long as that is the case, we will be on our feet talking about it and trying to bring better things to bear than the Hon. Member who asked the question.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, this evening I would like to take part in the debate on the motion presented by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), asking the Government to postpone passage of the Bill for six months so that the Government can call a conference of First Ministers. At the conference, discussions would be held to Find a solution and draft a fiscal agreement between Canada and the provinces. This agreement would have to be the result of a consensus, an agreement everybody can live with, and at the same time should give the Government a chance to show that it believes in what it promised,
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
which was consultation and co-operation with the provinces. If Bill C-96 is allowed to proceed, however, the Government will never be able to keep its promises.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps it would be useful to remind Government Members what their promises were with respect to payments to the provinces.
At a meeting of the Quebec Conservative Caucus held in Sherbrooke on July 26, 1984, the Progressive Conservative Party promised the following, and I quote:
"To observe the federal obligation to finance health care in the provinces under the established programs financing system and provide additional funding for the provinces on a parity basis, to establish or expand programs that are recognized, at a national conference of Health Ministers and health care professionals, as being most likely to improve the general health of Canadians and thus limit the cost of the system in the long term."
It was on that same occasion, on July 26, 1984, that the present Prime Minister, with his hand on his heart, promised he would never tamper with social programs. And we all know what happened in the May Budget and how he tampered with our social programs, and of course we all remember all the demonstrations on Parliament Hill, when for the first time in Canadian history, our senior citizens, our neediest senior citizens came here on Parliament Hill to tell this Government that it had reneged on its promises, and we must not forget Mrs. Denis, who said: Goodbye, Charlie Brown, we'll remember you.
It was on that same day, Mr. Speaker, that the present Prime Minister promised to defend the footwear industry and said he would go and see his friends in the United States, to protect our jobs in the Canadian footwear industry. We all know what happened last November: he abolished footwear quotas and the remaining few will soon be abolished as well.
Again that same day, Mr. Speaker, July 26, 1984, the Progressive Conservative Government made a promise during its 1984 election campaign: an increase in research and development expenditures to 2.5 per cent of the Gross National Product, and I quote this promise word for word: "Our commitment respecting research and development is a basic element of our over-all socio-economic development program. We firmly intend to double the research and development budget by increasing it to 2.5 per cent of the Gross National Product." So of course this past weekend we all read in the newspaper about the way it is keeping this promise, precisely by imposing severe cut-backs to small businesses which specialize in research and development.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak more directly to Bill C-96 and mention how the provinces have reacted. Ontario Premier David Peterson said, and I quote: "This shortage of revenues for the provinces will lead to fewer services". There will be fewer hospital beds, warns the Ontario Premier who also believes that provincial community colleges and universities will decrease enrolments by 75,000 in 1990.

June 16, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
Mr. Speaker, 75,000 fewer students in community colleges and universities is a lot. If we want to compete, if we want our young people to be well educated, how are we going to sell our products and services to the Americans? How can we believe all the nice things the Prime Minister has been telling the nation this evening if, for example, the funding of our community colleges and universities is drastically reduced?
Mr. Speaker, another reaction of the provinces was expressed by Ontario Treasurer Robert Nixon:
"There was uniform opposition to Ottawa's plan." He was referring to all provincial finance Ministers. "Nobody thought it was a good idea." Justice Dickson described Mr. Wilson as intransigent. That was reported in the Montreal Gazette of December 14, 1985.

In Quebec, Mr. Speaker, the present Minister of Finance, Mr. Gerard-D. Levesque said, and I quote:

"It is unfair to the provinces, because they have been counting on the amounts agreed to in the Accords."

Mr. Levesque reminded Ottawa that provinces in general had shown a high degree of discipline and restraint in controlling their expenditures. He invited Ottawa to look at its own backyard to see how much it could itself reduce its own expenditures. Richard Hatfield, the New Brunswick's Premier, said: "I will have no choice but to increase extra billing on health services".
John Baxter, The New Brunswick Minister of Finance, said: [English]
"It is unreasonable for the federal Government to think that provinces which have taken difficult measures to deal with their own financial situation can also be expected to absorb part of the problem at the federal level." He also said it is essential that the burden of the deficit be spread fairly across all regions of Canada. What the federal Government is doing does not ensure such fairness in the sharing of the burden. Mr. Kerr, Nova Scotia finance Minister, said every province made it clear that there is probably nothing more important to deliver to Canadians than health and education. Fie said by cutting health and education spending, the federal Government is running the risk of creating two levels of health care and education in this country. Mr. Vic Shroeder, Manitoba finance Minister, said the Minister of Finance made the wrong choices. The choices are basically to look after the people of the country or the corporations. He was referring to tax breaks the federal Government has given business.

Mr. Speaker, practically all provinces disagree with the Conservative Government's Bill C-96.
My colleague for Hamilton East has just introduced a motion to allow the legislation a six months hoist. This would enable the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), who is in this House, the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the entire Conservative Government to convene a First Ministers' Conference to sit together, to look for a reasonable solution and to make sure our health and post-secondary education programs are well structured so that students, our young people and our senior citizens can live in peace in a country like Canada.
Mr. Speaker, in order to show that this Government was committed to listen, to practice open government, to listen to the people, I would like to read a few comments from interest groups on that problem of transfer payments to provinces.
Mr. Roger Hamel, Chairman-

Mr. Roger Hamel, President of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, urged the federal Government to spend more on universities. He said the business community is increasingly concerned that the squeeze on post-secondary education funding will make it impossible for universities to meet the demand for research and development, or even to provide adequate basic instruction for students. Mr. Ed Anderson, President of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, said that proposed federal cuts to post-secondary education could place a university education beyond the reach of many students. Further slashes in university funding could spell hard times for higher education in Canada, resulting in higher tuition costs, program cuts and faculty reductions. The federal and provincial Governments have a moral obligation to give every student in the country at least the opportunity to attend university. Without an educated population, Canada is going to be hard-pressed to cope with the rapid changes in our increasingly technological world.

Dr. Donald Sauve, President of the Canadian Association of University teachers, told us: "Such a measure would lead to reductions 20 times as large as those made by the Liberals, which Conservatives fault at the time."
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see the Minister in this House, and I would like to quote, if he remembers, from what he had to say on March 23, 1982, and I would like to know what difference there is today!
He said: " The only sign it shows of cuttings spending is by shifting the burden of the established programs funding on to the provincial governments. The provinces are now moving into a deficit position, a position which will make it more difficult for them to finance this shift in spending. That is not cooperative federalism. That is predatory federalism, and it will not and cannot work in this country." If this could not work in
June 16, 1986

March 1982, how could it today? Will the Minister of Finance rise in the House and explain why what he said in March 1982 is no longer true in June 1986?
Moreover, two days later, more specifically on March 24, 1982, the same Minister stated: "Taking the action of unilaterally cutting the financing, which the Government is now proposing, and then having some discussions with the provinces, surely puts the cart before the horse. We should be reversing this procedure." What is he doing today, Mr. Speaker? After only four years, the only thing that has changed is that he was sitting before in the Opposition, and now he is sitting on the Government side. That is the only change.
Now that they are on the Government side, everything that Conservatives had said at the time they were sitting in the Opposition no longer applies. All the promises, Mr. Speaker. What has happened to all that? That is what the Canadian people are wondering. I think one should be realistic. Conservative Members should not be nervous when polls indicate that Canadians no longer trust them. It was their policy which caused Canadians to believe that they could have their cake and eat it too. Now that they sit on the Government side, they do exactly the opposite.
I should like to refer to what the National Federation of Nurses had to say about this bill, and I quote:
We are quite concerned about the Government's unilateral decision to restructure the financing agreements. There is neither consultation nor consensus when one party makes the decision and others just have the right to react.
It seems to us that the Government has now eliminated the superfluous and is now attacking the necessary; if cuts continue and if the growth of federal transfer payments keeps slowing down, we strongly believe that our health care system will deteriorate.
This is from the National Federation of Nurses, Mr. Speaker. Let us now look at what the Canadian Federation of Students says:
Limiting the increase of provincial transfers for established program financing as proposed in Bill C-96 will only aggravate the underfinancing problem which is already so much in evidence in Canadian post-secondary teaching institutions.
What worries us in this bill is that it attacks a phony problem, because if the provinces do not respect the agreements, the amounts which are allocated to them cannot be reduced. A distribution method should be implemented to achieve this type of result.
There are many more, Mr. Speaker, and I could continue for a long time.
Let us be realistic. The Government has now undertaken negotiations. Tomorrow, free trade negotiations will begin in the United States. How can we initiate such negotiations in the belief that we can compete with the Americans if, at the same time, we reduce the funds which would allow our universities to develop research programs and to offer the best professors, the best services and the best equipment available so that the new generation will be able to produce goods and services and sell them, not only to the United States, but throughout the world, and be really competitive and have a healthy and prosperous economy?
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
Mr. Speaker, by reducing university financing, we are going against what we are trying to do, and Canadians will come out the losers, not only because the Government was unable to plan the free trade negotiations and started off on the wrong foot, but also because it is reducing at the same time the financing available to our universities.
Second, we are concerned about the elderly. We all agree on the figures. Neither the Government nor the Opposition can question them. It is obvious that the number of elderly will increase in the future. We shall therefore need more hospitals, more beds in our hospitals and more costly equipment. If the Government reduces provincial transfers for health care services, how can we meet this objective? How can we tell our senior citizens not to worry, that they will have a stable future because we can take care of them, when we are reducing the funds available to the provinces?
Mr. Speaker, we have proposed a six month hoist of this Bill to give the Government an opportunity to sit down with the Premiers and find an answer which will not penalize our senior citizens or tomorrow's generation.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I note again that the Conservative Members of Parliament are not rising to defend Bill C-96.


Mr. Valcourt:: Call a vote and then you will see. Vote on it and then you will see where we stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Member for York South- Weston (Mr. Nunziata) has the floor.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I note that the Member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Valcourt), who has been in the House all day today, is indicating that we will know where the Conservative Government stands when we vote on the matter. We know what the legislation is all about, we are simply asking that he stand up and tell the people of Madawaska- Victoria why the federal Government is proposing to cut, over the next five years to the Province of Slew Brunswick, $229 million in federal transfer payments.


Bernard Valcourt: Because the Liberal Government bankrupted the country.


John V. Nunziata: The Member shouts from his seat, but he does not have the courage to stand up to defend this Bill. I notice behind him the Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins), who as well has been here throughout the day, and yet has not had the courage to stand in her place to explain to her constituents in Capilano, and, indeed, to all the residents of British Columbia, why the federal Government over the next five years is cutting $935 million in federal transfer payments for post-secondary education and health care. I notice the Member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Caldwell) is here this evening as well. One would ask why he has not stood in his place to explain why the federal Government is cutting $2.9 billion in

June 16, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
federal transfer payments to the Province of Ontario? I notice the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) here and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), neither of whom have stood in their place to try to defend this legislation today. The Minister for Northern Affairs is here, yet he has not found it-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would just like to remind the Hon. Member that we are not supposed to refer to the absence or the presence of specific Members in the House. The Member for York South-Weston has the floor.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I will not refer to their presence in the House because it is just as well they were not here over the course of the last 10 hours. I have been in the House for 10 hours straight and there has only been one Member, the Member for York East (Mr. Redway), who has stood up to speak. I will not comment any further on the fact that government Members are not responding to this legislation. It is obvious that they are embarrassed by the legislation and cannot defend it. It is equally obvious that they are doing a very serious and profound injustice and disservice to their respective constituencies in their respective regions of Canada.
Constituents of Conservative Members throughout Canada are asking where their Members of Parliament are and why they are not standing up to speak in the House of Commons.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Did they elect them or was it a bad dream?


John V. Nunziata: Was it a bad dream on September 4, 1984? One would think that those parliamentarians would stand up to speak. We on this side of the House may disagree with what Hon. Members opposite may say, but at least we would respect them for saying something about this legislation rather than saying nothing.
On a number of occasions my hon. friend has spoken forcefully and vigorously, with considerable eloquence and passion about this Bill. Is he aware that at committee stage of Bill C-96, every person, group or organization that appeared before the legislative committee considering Bill C-96 objected to its passing? These groups include the Canadian Medical Association; the National Federation of Nurses; the Canadian Nurses' Association; the Canadian Federation of Students; the Canadian Health Coalition; the Canadian Union of Public Employees; the Canadian Teachers' Federation; the Canadian Hospital Association; the Canadian Association of Optometrists; and the list goes on. Is my colleague aware of that fact and, if so, will he comment on why all these groups would find it necessary to oppose the legislation in such a vigorous and forceful fashion?


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.


Alfonso Gagliano: My hon. friend already listed the groups which appeared before the committee. However, one that I find very appropriate is the National Federation of Nurses. They state: "It is alarming to us that this Government has unilaterally determined what the funding arrangement will be. Surely consultation and consensus cannot occur when a decision is made by one group and the other affected by the decision can only react to it."


J. Michael Forrestall: What are you reading from?


Alfonso Gagliano: They continue: "As far as we can see, all the fat has been trimmed to the bone. In fact, we think we are into the marrow and if the continued reduction and slowing of growth in federal transfer payments are allowed to continue, this system is going to haemorrhage and we firmly believe that." That is a very clear statement from the National Federation of Nurses.


J. Michael Forrestall: Who wrote it?


Alfonso Gagliano: The Hon. Member is asking me what I am reading. I am reading from the Minutes of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-96. Maybe you should go and read it so that you can understand what you are in a rush to vote for.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I cannot hear what the Hon. Member is saying.


Philip Derek Lewis: It is just as well.


An Hon. Member:: Do not worry, you're not missing much.


An Hon. Member:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. There is one minute left in the question and comment period.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A short question for the Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) followed by a very short answer by the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard- Anjou (Mr. Gagliano).


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Speaker of the House of Commons would be interested in seeing democracy served, even when some Members of the House fail to appreciate their responsibility to come here and represent the views of their constituents, and to have what it takes to find their feet, their heart and some intelligence and stand up and say to their constituents why they take certain actions.
I think that we should give thanks here that Members such as my colleague are here all day long, prepared to speak on behalf of their constituents, and more important, prepared to speak on behalf of those disenfranchised constituents who sent 211 Conservative Members of Parliament who deem it their own responsibility to check and see when the Government Whip tells them to vote and to say: "Which way sir? Aye, aye", and to vote.


J. Michael Forrestall: Read on.
June 16, 1986

Does my colleague and friend believe that the people of Canada expect parliamentarians to be here, even if it is nine o'clock at night, to try and stop this Draconian measure? Is he as committed as I to take every legal parliamentary action possible to bring this sleeping giant dictatorship of 211 Members to its senses?


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. You are indicating that I should be very brief. I shall therefore say simply that I shall certainly be here even if we have to stay here all night, all day tomorrow, all week or even throughout July. We shall always be available to fight for the interests of Canadians


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, in the interest of democracy and hearing two different points of view, I would like to take my seat and give Members opposite a chance to stand. Is there any one of you who has the courage and the backbone to stand?


An Hon. Member:: He resumed his seat. Next speaker.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Debate, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Member has the floor. Does he wish the floor for debate?


J. Michael Forrestall: No. He had it.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Yes, I do. More than I wish to have the floor this evening-*


J. Michael Forrestall: You made your speech.


Brian Vincent Tobin: -more than I wish to take an opportunity to speak on behalf of the people of Newfoundland who sent me here, 1 wish that I could understand what keeps Members opposite in their place when we are debating a measure before Parliament that will take $8 billion from the health care system of this country and $8 billion from the educational system of this country. I am mesmerized by the notion that Members of Parliament would be sent here collectively by millions of Canadians to speak on their behalf and, despite a direct challenge to stand and address this issue, they would sit like surfers. They surfed in on the tide and they will surf out with the tide.
Bill C-96 does not involve a government attempt to simply balance the books or make the fiscal position of the Government more attractive to the Auditor General at the end of the year. That is not what Bill C-96 is about. The few pages of legislation is not simply a document drafted by government bureaucrats in order to put legislation before the House.
Let us put a face on Bill C-96, which I believe can best be done by Justice Hall when, in the course of undertaking his review of Canada's national-provincial health programs in the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
1980s, provided us with a simple but eloquent reminder of why Canadians supported the concept of medicare. Medicare is under attack by this legislation. Mr. Justice Hall said that: "The trauma of illness, the pain of surgery, the slow decline to death are burdens enough for the human being to bear without the added burden of medical or hospital bills, penalizing the patient at the moment of vulnerability." He said that the Canadian people determined they should band together to pay medical bills and hospital bills when they were well and income earning.
Health services were no longer items to be bought off the shelf and paid for at the check-out stand, nor was their price to be bargained for at the time they were sought. They were fundamental needs, like education, which Canadians could meet collectively and pay for through taxes. I think Mr. Justice Hall in his own eloquent way has reminded us-even a number of years ago, from the transcript of his report-what we are debating tonight. Bill C-96 is not a Bill about meeting the bottom line. It is not a Bill about the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) being able to report to Canadians that by transferring the federal debt on to the shoulders of the provinces he has lowered the deficit.
Bill C-96 goes to the heart and soul of the fabric that keeps this country together. Canadians, no matter where we live in this land, no matter what our differences in language, culture, tradition, geography or economic opportunity, believe there are certain fundamentals that bind us together, make us a nation, give us a sense of identity. We feel that no matter where we live, we are Canadians, be we Canadians in Newfoundland on the bill of Cape St. George, be we Canadians on the coastline of British Columbia and Prince Rupert, be we Canadians in Gaspe or northern Ontario, be we Canadians in Winnipeg or Toronto.
There are a number of things that bind us together, that we hold in common and that we treasure. What we think defines us as Canadians is the expectation, no matter where we live, no matter what our circumstance, no matter what our income level, of receiving through our Government, through our collective will, a first-class and adequate level of health care service. That is one of the things that holds us together. Despite our economic circumstance, despite the potential of our own particular town, we have the expectation of receiving, as a result of our common will, something that we have developed in this country, the opportunity derived from the best education system that Canada can offer. Both of those things that we hold dear are directly under attack by Bill C-96.
It has been said many times that the measure of any community and, in the larger sense, the measure of the whole country, is the way in which we treat both our young people and our senior citizens. In terms of how our young people and senior citizens have been treated in this country, Canada can hold its head high among the nations of the world.

June 16, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
I say that the actions of the Minister of Finance, in seeking to balance his books on the backs of our young people and our senior citizens-


John V. Nunziata: Shameful!


Brian Vincent Tobin: -are shameful, indeed, and will not allow this country to hold its head high among the community of nations. This Bill is an action that says to our senior citizens who have paid their dues, who have built this country for us, who have provided us with our resources, the infrastructure, the quality of life we have today, that as they enter their declining years, the system they built and fashioned for us, their sons and daughters, their grandchildren, can no longer afford them at this time in their lives. So, the Government will cut billions away from the health care system and, whatever happens will happen.
It is a Bill that says to the young people of Canada, to those upon whom we will depend to stay competitive in an increasingly competitive world, one where technology erupts and evolves daily, where the jobs of today become extinct tomorrow and we must stay on the cutting edge of new technology, that Canada no longer believes in itself. If we cannot believe in those people who shall follow to take up the reins of responsibility of citizenship where we have left off, then we no longer believe in ourselves or in this vision that has been passed on to us by those who have gone before.
Tonight we saw the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) on television, talking about free trade.


Mr. Kilgour:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member spoke earlier today and, with great respect to him, it seems to me that the rule of relevance should exclude the sort of tangent he was following if the debate is to have any meaning here, Sir.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Edmonton- Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) would appear to have a valid point of order, but the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port- St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) had not finished his sentence. I presume he will bring it close to the Bill. If not, of course, it would be out of order.


Brian Vincent Tobin: But of course, Mr. Speaker. Once again, your wisdom, your experience and your calm nature has set an example for Hon. Members who would hastily jump to their feet at the first mention of their own Prime Minister. I do not know why it causes such an excitable reaction on the benches opposite. As I was saying, if the Hon. Member follows this in a coherent, logical manner, he will see the relevance to Bill C-96.
Tonight, the Prime Minister of Canada was on television for an address to the Canadian people about free trade. He used some important language tonight, some very symbolic language. He said that by the time this negotiation is over, for the first time, we will truly have "a level playing field". What does that mean and how is it relevant to Bill C-96?
The expression "level playing field" is an American expression. Those are the words Americans use every time they suggest that Canadian industry or society is somehow subsidized and that until Canada gets rid of those subsidies, we will not have a level playing field of trade between Canada and the United States. What speaks well of the level of civilization in Canada-at least up until the introduction of Bill C-96-is that we provide the sick or aged among us with the best medical care this country can offer, irrespective of their economic circumstances. That does not happen south of the border.
There is no medicare system south of the border. There is no guaranteed, right of citizenship south of the border that if one's father, mother, child or spouse becomes ill that that member of the family will receive the best medical attention available unless, of course, one is able to dig one's hands into one's pockets to produce the cash. That is what separates us, at least in that field, from the United States. Of course, if one is to take the Prime Minister seriously, that after free trade negotiations we will truly have a level playing field, then one can only assume that Bill C-96, with all of its tragic implications and the Draconian nature of the Bill, is part of the levelling out of the playing field.
The desire of the people of Canada to have a medicare system, that quality of life for all citizens, represents a bump on the American view of the economic field. We do not say to our fishermen, vis-a-vis the American fishermen, "If you are ill, cough up the cash, wipe out this year's catch, this year's earnings, and we will fix your problem. If not, my friend, wait in line".
When I hear that kind of language, which is American language, not Canadian language, "We are going to develop a level playing field", I begin to wonder how much of the legislation of the Government of Canada-be it Bill C-96, be it the cost recovery provisions of Bill C-75 or be it Bill C-88, severing off CN Marine and user-pay on the ferry systems of Atlantic-Canada-is part of the cake the Prime Minister is baking with his friend, Ronald Reagan, who did not pay attention to the recipe and threw in some shakes and shingles, unannounced to the Prime Minister.
It is just as the Prime Minister in his comments on free trade tonight introduced the people of Canada to a concept that they heretofore-at least up until the last election campaign when he sought his mandate-had not heard about. He did not campaign on it. It is suddenly the quest for the Holy Grail, the life of Brian. It is the "Monty-Python-on-the-Rideau Theatre". It is suddenly his raison d'etre. Just as the Prime Minister did not tell us in seeking our votes last time around that that was his mandate in life, so too the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has a 360-degree object in his mouth called tongue which has the ability to flip-flop before the floor of the Parliament of Canada.
June 16, 1986

Any Member of the House who has done the slightest amount of research on this Bill will know what the Minister of Finance said on this subject. He sits silent right across from me, providing the example for his colleagues in caucus to sit silently, prepared at any moment when I stop speaking to jump to their feet and say: "Aye, aye, sir," to the skipper to pass this Bill. Only a few years ago, and in advance of the last election, in another life, the present Minister of Finance said the following in the House of Commons on March 24, 1982. This is from the Official Report, not the unofficial report, not hearsay, but the actual verbatim words of the Minister of Finance as he stated them in the House of Commons. Mr. Speaker, pick your ears up. Get ready. It is a darned good thing that the Speaker is sitting down because the same Minister who proposes Bill C-96, cutting back health care and education today in this House, ever-ready to find his feet at the moment it comes to vote, said:
Taking the action of unilaterally cutting the financing, which the government is now proposing, and then having some discussions with the provinces, surely puts the cart before the horse. We should be reversing this procedure.
The Minister complained that undertaking this kind of action was putting the cart before the horse. I say to the Minister that to stand in his place on March 24, 1982, and make that kind of statement, and to come to the House today as Minister of Finance with Bill C-96, one would need to have the face of a robber's horse, irrespective of the cart. He would need to have a nerve like a toothache. We have been waiting patiently, diligently, hopefully, to see the Hon. Member find his seat, his knees, his backbone, his courage, his integrity, to come to his feet and to explain to us what great transformation has taken place that has caused such a complete turn-around on the position he was articulating in this House a scant few years ago.
Mr. Speaker, if you did not believe in the philosophy of reincarnation when you came here, you will surely believe in it now, having sat through some of the speeches of Hon. Members. Some of these Members have callouses on their tongues. Having sat through some of the flip-flops made by Members opposite, and in particular Ministers, you now believe in the philosophy of reincarnation, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance, according to his own philosophy, has been reincarnated as a Canadian-is it ogre? I read my little girl fairy tales from time to time. There is a character who is a big, mean, nasty, brutish, insensitive character who is not aware of the ramifications of his actions.


John V. Nunziata: The troll!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to you that I would much prefer this evening to be home with my little girl. She is five years old and, traditionally, I try to get home and read her a bedtime story. I am sure in the final analysis, given the will of this brutal majority, this reckless majority, this out-ofcontrol majority, this insensitive majority, this dictator-like majority, that it may be just as well I did stay home because they will finally have the Bill. Ordinarily, I would like to stay home and read her her story.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
The reason I am not there is that while she will miss my story-telling talents this evening, I am here trying to ensure, not for tomorrow's headlines and not for today's-there is much too much of that type of concern in this place-that down the road as she goes through what is now Canada's educational system that the quality of the system shall be retained. I do this so that when she is 10 years old, 15 years old, 20 years old, this country will not have stripped away from her before she was old enough to realize it the great heritage that our fathers and forefathers built and passed on to us.
In conclusion, I believe that we have been passed a great gift in our health system and in our education system. It was passed to us with no strings attached, bar one. That is the responsibility to enhance, to protect those great gifts, and to pass them along to our children. That we surely cannot do if Bill C-96 passes this House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway).


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, I have repeated this question previously to other members of the Opposition and, indeed, to the Hon. Member himself earlier today when he spoke on the same subject and gave the same speech. This is the thirteenth day in which the House of Commons has debated Bill C-96. In fact, the Hon. Member's speech was the one hundred and twenty-fourth speech that was given in relation to this Bill.


John V. Nunziata: How many Liberals and how many Tories?


Alan Redway: As I indicated, the Hon. Member has spoken at least twice in the debate, once earlier this morning when his remarks were very similar if not identical to the remarks he has just made. I would like to put to him the same question. I am sure he will agree that if he can make the same speech twice in the House of Commons on the same day, then I can put to him the same question in the House of Commons on the same day. Unfortunately, the Hon. Member was unable to answer my question this morning. Having had some time to reflect, perhaps he will be able to answer it now.
Is it not better that the transfer funding for health care and post-secondary education to the provinces be increased by a greater amount than inflation, as this Bill and this Government is doing, than was done by the previous Liberal Government which transferred payments which were actually 5 per cent less than the rate of inflation? Is that not a better way of doing it?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member points out that this is the thirteenth day of debate and that mine was the one hundred and twenty-fourth speech. When the history of this time period is written, these days will be called "13 days for Canada". When the index is filled in with respect to who stood up during those 13 days for Canada-and I suspect it will be 14, 15 and 16 days-with some distinction the Hon. Member will be able to say that while he was not able to defend this

June 16, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
measure or speak to it, and while he was not able to explain the measure, he was able from time to time to make an otherwise boring echo which came back on those who have already convinced themselves of the Draconian measure of this Bill and that he was available from time to time to provide some colour commentary. For that I congratulate him, because his colleagues opposite have not been able to find an enlightened, energetic heckle. I congratulate you, my friend, for finding your feet and your courage and, if not as is otherwise the case, your intelligence in posing such a question.


Alan Redway: Let's hear the answer.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Is it not better than something that is recorded in the history books? First, the Hon. Member is trying to give the impression to the people of Canada that the rate of inflation for the country as a whole, 4 per cent, is the equivalent rate of inflation, both in health and in education.


Alan Redway: Prove that it is not.


Brian Vincent Tobin: The Hon. Member would be the first to admit that that is absolutely wrong. He would be the first to acknowledge that in our education and health care systems, the cost of moving with evolving technology, retooling and staying relevant to the big world is significantly higher than 4 per cent.
The Hon. Member asks me to prove that he is not right and is implying that as a Liberal, I am disagreeing simply to be difficult. The Hon. Member himself would acknowledge that the Tory Government of New Brunswick opposes this measure. The Hon. Member would acknowledge that the Socred or Tory Government of British Columbia opposes this measure. The Hon. Member would acknowledge that the Government of P.E.I. which was just swept out as the first victim of Mul-roneyism-sorry, Prime Ministerism-opposed this measure. The Hon. Member would admit that the Minister of Education in Nova Scotia under Premier John Buchanan, a Tory, opposes this measure.
I am not opposing this measure just to be difficult. I am opposing it for the same reason the Canadian Medical Association and nurses' associations oppose it. I oppose it for the same reason those organizations that speak on behalf of doctors and hospital administrators oppose it. I oppose it for the same reason students oppose it. I oppose it for the same reason 20-pages-worth of responsible, credible, important contributors to society oppose it.
I would say to the Hon. Member-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would like to fit in at least two questions.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, in examining this Bill and the cuts that are contemplated in it, it appears to me that the burden of providing health care and education services will fall
even more heavily on the less well-to-do provinces. Since the Hon. Member comes from Newfoundland, 1 wonder if he could comment on how these cuts will impact on the Atlantic provinces.
The cuts are bad for all the provinces, but it seems to me that they will be particularly harsh for the have-not provinces that need federal transfer payments. Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia have been objecting to this measure as well. Perhaps the Hon. Member could comment on how this will, to an even greater extent, provide for inequalities between provinces. Has the Hon. Member looked at that at all?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member who asked me a question a short while ago said that I am making the same speech I made this morning. Of course, that is not true. He inadvertently left some misleading information on the floor of the House of Commons. This morning I dealt almost exclusively and in great detail with the impact of this Bill on my own Province of Newfoundland. In the Province of Newfoundland, those cut-backs will amount to $187 million; in the Province of Nova Scotia, $282 million; in New Brunswick, $228 million, in P.E.I. with a scant 125,000 people, $40 million.
The example I gave this morning bears repeating and it is that in Newfoundland, the health care system is already so strapped because of the high level of unemployment and the fiscal constraints on the provincial Government, which cannot handle the cut-backs, that in order for a group of parents from the community of Flower's Cove to develop a classroom for handicapped students so they would not have to travel an hour and a half by bus to be educated, the parents organized the community and raised funds in order to graft on to the side of the existing school a classroom for 12 handicapped students, almost without the consent of the provincial Government. The parents did this as a way of forcing the school board to hire a teacher so that these students could be educated in their own community. That is an example on the education side of the current pressures that are being felt by the province and the boards of education and how they affect people.
On the medical side, a colleague of mine, Dr. Jacobs, who has lived and worked on the northern peninsula in the small rural communities, called me this morning to speak about Bill C-96. He has been a Canadian for four years and in that four years has come to respect, admire and love this country. His words to me were quite simple. He said: "For God's sake, man, we have already developed a second-class Canadian citizenship in the communities of the northern peninsula with respect to health care, so stop this Bill". I hope that in some small measure, this will contribute to the understanding of Hon. Members of the reality of these cut-backs in rural communities.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, as many Hon. Members have stated already, the purpose of this Bill, no matter which way one looks at it, is to cut federal funds for education and health care
June 16, 1986

in the provinces. These cuts will amount to approximately $8.2 billion once the Bill is passed between now and 1992, some six years. As a result of this Bill, the provinces will receive $8.2 billion less than they would have received for health care and education.
We in the Liberal Party have opposed this Bill at second reading stage, in committee and at report stage and now we are opposing it at third reading stage. We have moved a motion that this Bill be not read a third time until six months hence, a way of trying to postpone the implementation of this Bill at least until that time.
The Hon. Member from the Conservative Party who just asked a question stated that this Bill has been debated for 13 days and consequently that should be enough. We all know that in a Parliament such as this in which the Government has 211 Members and the Opposition only 70, we cannot win any votes but we can, through debate in the House, bring issues to the attention of the public in an attempt to formulate public opinion on these issues.
I must say that with so many issues before the country and with the Government creating new issues that did not even exist before, it is sometimes difficult to penetrate the public consciousness, and for that reason we must continue this debate. We must continue this debate so that Canadians will know what is happening with respect to education and health care services. We know that the Government does not respect Parliament. It would just as soon see that we did not debate these issues at all but closed down. However, government Members do respect public opinion polls.
I am not afraid to state very clearly in the House that I do not expect to convince government Members through debate but I do hope that through debate, my colleagues and other members of the Opposition will make members of the public aware of what is happening so that they will react by sending letters and making phone calls and responding to the many polls that are taking place. In this way, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Cabinet will finally start to listen.
When the Government introduced this Bill, government Members did speak at that time. They said that the Bill was required in order to deal with the terrible deficit. Of course action should be taken to deal with the deficit, but there is no way that that action should fall on our health care and education systems. The deficit became a serious problem many years after we implemented programs to assist post-secondary education and health care.
We had our hospitalization system and programs for assisting provinces in post-secondary education for many years, and there was no problem with the deficit. The programs which are being cut in Bill C-96 are not the cause of the deficit. More than that, during the election campaign, the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party pledged that social
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
and health programs were a sacred trust which would not be cut back by them. However, what do we see?
While they are cutting back on education and health care, they are providing $500,000 capital gains exemptions to their friends, the big investors. The Prime Minister is also providing for posterity by having a Hercules aircraft tailing him across the country with cameras to take photos and videos of him at $40,000 per crack. That was not done before; it is an additional expenditure.
Over the weekend we read in the newspapers about increases in the staff of Ministers as a result of the Freedom of Information Act. The figures released by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) show that the over-all cost of Ministers' staff is $42.9 million in the 1985-86 fiscal year. That is up 17 per cent from 1983-84. However, they spent 53 per cent more on their personal political staff last year than did the Liberals in their last full year in office. Of course, that sort of thing is going on at all levels. While they are cutting back on education and health care, Ministers' offices are becoming bigger. Instead of executive assistants, they have chiefs of staff earning up to $70,000 per year. Also, offices are being opened up in Vancouver, Montreal, and other cities so that Ministers can put up their feet and make their telephone calls. That was never done before. I understand that the Government is about to rent space in one of the most expensive buildings in Montreal. It only has one Minister in Montreal, the second largest city in the country, and he is not very visible. The Government is opening a large office down there like the one in Vancouver so that other Tory Ministers can come to Montreal and carry on their business in that way. That was not necessary in the past; it was not necessary under the former Liberal Government nor under the former Conservative Government of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark).
We have had $1 billion bail-outs for depositors in banks and the $56 million for new uniforms for members of the Armed Forces. While those sorts of things are going on, the Government cuts the rate of growth of moneys for education and health care.
Of course the deficit has to be dealt with, as I said. The negative approach of the Government in cutting health care and education will not really reduce the deficit. What will reduce the deficit is a growing and vibrant economy. Essential to a growing and vibrant economy is a dynamic post-secondary education system. The strength of a growing economy is in the ability of our citizens to deal with the problems of a modern technological age, in the ability of our citizens to produce research and development and new products, and in the ability of our citizens to deal with entrepreneurial problems in a new and dynamic way.
Education is paramount if we are to have a growing productive economy. It is a growing productive economy which will return more moneys to the Treasury and bring down the deficit, even without raising taxes and without cutting programs. It could be that certain programs should be cut, but

June 16, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
not education and health care. In effect, the Government is not even cutting the deficit in this way. What it is doing when it cuts educational and health care programs is transferring the deficit to the provinces. Once it cuts the moneys which go from the federal Government to the provinces to pay for education and health care, everyone knows that education must be kept at a level which will keep us competitive with the United States, Western Europe, Japan, and so on. Someone will have to pay for education and health care, and it will be the provinces. Unfortunately it will almost be impossible for the Maritime Provinces, the Province of Manitoba, and the Province of Quebec. Perhaps Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia in its best days can keep up, but it will be very difficult for the poorer provinces without that required money from the federal Government.
Fees are already being raised by universities because of the cuts. The provinces cannot provide more money to their universities, colleges, and technical schools. The people who wish to attend those institutions have to pay out of their own pockets, and many of them cannot. Students are hoping to obtain summer jobs to pay their fees and their room and board expenses, but it does not look good in many cases. What is happening? In effect, we are returning to a day which we thought we had left many years ago when university education becomes accessible to the rich and those with money but not so accessible to those without money, especially those from poorer provinces.
The government measure in respect of health care is occurring at a time when those people who are over 65 years of age are becoming a greater percentage of the population, when our population is aging and consequently there is a greater demand upon the health care system. I should like to quote what Justice Emmett Hall said when he spoke about health care. I think all Hon. Members of the House recognize Justice Emmett Hall, through his royal commission report and his review of the medicare system, as one of the leading experts on health care in Canada. He argued the following:
-that the trauma of illness, the pain of surgery, the slow decline to death, are burdens enough for the human being to bear without the added burden of medical or hospital bills penalizing the patient at the moment of vulnerability. The Canadian people determined that they should band together to pay medical bills and hospital bills when they were well and income earning. Health services were no longer items to be bought off the shelf and paid for at the checkout stand. Nor was their price to be bargained for at the time they were sought. They were a fundamental need like education, which Canadians could meet collectively and pay through taxes.
That is the system which we in the House put in place in 1966. By the way, it is now being threatened in Ontario by its doctors. The doctors of one of the richest provinces in Canada are bucking the medicare system and are insisting upon extra billing. We are fighting against a Bill which would cut back moneys to the provinces to help pay for post-secondary education and health care.
As other Hon. Members have said already, our only hope with Bills such as this one is that Canadian public opinion will come to bear on the Government. We cannot win any vote
against this massive horde on the other side and surrounding us on both sides over here.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Does that give you a real warm feeling?


William Warren Allmand: They are not bad fellows as individuals, but when they get together and stand behind these policies, it is hard to take. Our only means of fighting back against this kind of a Bill is to continue the debate until it penetrates the public consciousness as to what is happening. I will repeat what I said at the beginning. As a result of this Bill, more than $8 billion less will go the provinces for education and health care by the year 1992. That is a tragedy and a shame for a country that is trying to keep pace with others in this competitive technological age.


Mr. Marchi:: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech by my hon. colleague, the Hon. Member for NDG-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand). I was struck by the articulation of his commentary concerning the drastic and Draconian cuts that the health and educational services will have to absorb under the Tory regime. I was struck also because, as we travelled throughout the country and talked to various Canadians from all walks of life from all regions, there were two elements in the federal-provincial domain which people treat as sacred. They are the two elements by which we can measure how progressive Canadian society is; on the one hand, how we treat our young people, vis-a-vis education, and on the other, how we treat our elderly vis-a-vis health care.
All ages of Canadians need to have access to the health care system. It is obviously understood and accepted that the older one gets, the more one needs medical services. It is a dichotomy that in Bill C-96 we are hitting two very crucial elements, the two extremes of Canadian society, the young and the old. I would like to ask my hon. friend about some comments from the Canadian Federation of Students. Tony Macerollo on behalf of the Canadian Federation of Students concentrating on the youth aspect said:
Limiting the growth of EPF transfers to the provinces as outlined in Bill C-96 will amplify the underfunding problems that have become evident at postsecondary institutions across the country.
Our concern with respect to this particular Bill is that it attacks the wrong problem, in that if the spending arrangements are not being carried out in the appropriate manner by the provinces, the funding cannot be cut back. A method of allocation has to be put in place that is going to ensure that kind of accountability.
My colleague from Montreal is also the critic for employment programs. We have heard the Government talk about education as being the key to tomorrow's society, as education being the key to the development of young people so they can seize the opportunities that will be theirs tomorrow, how will this bill affect the evolution and development, if you will, of those young people as they enter the 21st century as leaders of Canadian society and how will this type of Bill reflect and retard that crucial and important process?
June 16, 1986


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the cutbacks under Bill C-96 will affect students, universities, professors and programs at the universities. Those will be the direct effects of the cuts under this Bill. The Government may see that because that is a direct result, but why can the Government not see that by doing what it proposes, not only does the Government affect and hurt students, the professors, the universities and colleges, but the Government will also affect the entire economy? Employment will be hurt in Canada. If the key to a growing economy in a modern technological age is know-how, then the only way to get that know-how is through higher education.
Look at a country like Switzerland, which has virtually few resources, few mines, little water but yet a very strong economy because of a highly skilled labour force in engineering, in banking, in finance, in chemicals and so on. It is able, through that highly skilled labour force, to have an economy where the rates of unemployment and inflation are both under 5 per cent.
If we do not do something concrete in productivity, we will be very short-sighted in the long run because the U.S., the common market, Japan and the emerging countries will move ahead if we do not keep up with them, especially in the area of skilled professional and trades people. This sort of thing is wrong in every aspect. It is my opinion that not only should we be not cutting back, but there should be a substantial increase in training and education moneys if we are really interested in dealing not only with the deficit, but to bring Canada back to a position of a thriving and productive economy.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand). The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) talked about the level playing field that was mentioned on television tonight concerning trade talks. He described it as being a situation that all things being equal, there will be equal opportunity on both sides of the border for trade. Does the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace- Lachine East see anything of a level playing field under Bill C-96? Here we have a Bill that deals with the 10 provinces and the two Territories. We suppose that with the level playing field everyone across the country will have an equal opportunity.
Does the Member see the Government through Bill C-96 giving all citizens equal opportunity in medicare and equal opportunity in post-secondary education? Does the Member really think that there will come a time as a result of legislation, such as this, that we will need another high level commission such as the Rowell-Sirois commission to look into federal-provincial financial arrangements to get a better deal for the poorer provinces of Canada and equality of education for places like Ontario which pays the biggest bill?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to know despite the Prime Minister's remarks tonight what he still has in mind
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
when he talks about free trade. If he has in mind a comprehensive free trade agreement, that will mean American professionals and trades people will have access to jobs in Canada.
If we go ahead with Bills like Bill C-96 and continue in this direction, Americans will be better trained and better educated than we will. Not only will the Americans be taking over our businesses, but they will be taking over our jobs. Unfortunately, we will have Canadians without training or the professional know-how that Americans will have. We will not have a level playing field. It will be a bumpy playing field for Canadians and a pretty smooth playing field for Americans. The only way Canadians will be able to compete as skilled employees with Americans is by a high powered efficient education system. This Bill will bring us in exactly the opposite direction. It will hurt Canadians competing with Americans for jobs on this so-called playing field.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. friend and colleague for his submissions here this evening. I have a question for him. For the life of me I cannot understand the motivation behind Bill C-96. I have tried to understand why the Government is trying to cut back $8 billion in federal transfer payments to the provincial Governments. The only answer I come up with is that the whole purpose behind Bill C-96 is to reduce the national deficit. It is obvious to me that the Government does not understand the impact of withdrawing $8 billion in federal transfer payments to the provinces over five years.
Can the Hon. Member speculate as to why the Government is doing something which is almost universally opposed? Speaker after speaker today have condemned the legislation. Individual after individual and group after group that appeared before the committee objected to this legislation. Why is the Government insisting on passing legislation which will have a devastating impact on Canadian society? What, in his view is the motivation?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Hon. Member that it is hard to understand the rationalization behind the Bill. I can only speculate that when they were sitting around the cabinet table deciding how to cut the deficit, they considered different items. While they were handing out $500,000 tax exemptions to those with capital gains and bailing out those with large deposits in banks, they picked on education and health care to cut. The only rationalization I can give is that the people who were sitting around the cabinet table do not understand the ordinary man who has to deal with the problems of health care and education, nor do the people who support the Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


William Warren Allmand: They are obviously the kind of people who can afford to go to Harvard-

June 16, 1986
Adjournment Debate


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member but the period for questions and comments is over.


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on Bill C-96, because the federal Government claims that under the provisions of this Bill, it is protecting the provinces against inflation. However, as the Nielsen Report pointed out, the cost of health care and post-secondary education is expected to rise faster than inflation and our economic growth.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to rise at this stage in the debate to explain to Quebecers that the cutbacks resulting from this Bill will most certainly affect Quebec. Over the next five years, Quebec will lose $2.83 billion. In 1986-87, $82 million; in
1987-	88, $174 million for the province of Quebec alone; in
1988-	89, $277 million; in 1989-90, $389 million;
In 1990-91, Quebec will lose $512 million and in 1991-92, $647 million. This adds up to a total of $2.83 billion for the province of Quebec and Quebecers.
When the federal Government claims that Bill C-96 protects the provinces, I wonder whether cutbacks totalling more than $2 billion afford any particular kind of protection to the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, that is why as a Quebecer and as the Member for Bourassa, I strenuously object to cutbacks of this kind.
Mr. Speaker, if we go back to what was said by the Quebec Minister of Finance when he brought down his Budget for 1986-87, he said the following: Transfer payments to the provinces do not lie at the root of the federal deficit, because these transfers have remained constant in relation to the Gross National Product for several years, while other federal expenditures represented a growing percentage of GNP. And the Minister of Finance went on to say: "That the federal Government is transferring its deficit to the provinces."
Mr. Speaker, indirectly, that is certainly quite true, because the federal Government is cutting more than $2 billion in transfer payments to the provinces over a period of five years.
The Minister went on to say: "The federal Government has again decided to sidestep real negotiations with the provinces."
Mr. Speaker, this Government has always claimed it wanted to negotiate with the provinces and has always claimed it was listening to the provinces. Well, they certainly did not listen to the Province of Quebec when they deciced to make a drastic cut of $2 billion without consulting anybody. I am not the one who is saying this, Mr. Speaker, those are the words of the provincial Minister of Finance.
He went on to say: "The federal Government is making incoherent budgetary decisions by reducing its participation in health care and post-secondary education while allowing a
gradual exemption on capital gains and gradually withdrawing from the oil and gas taxation field in the producing provinces."
Mr. Speaker, the federal cut-backs will make interprovincial disparities even worse since a $1 per capita cut in a rich province does not have the same impact as a similar cut in a poorer province.
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Quebec was forced to introduce a surtax on corporate income. Why? Again because the Province of Quebec did not get the more than $2 billion it was entitled to. It had to raise the employer's contribution to the health care fund and increase the tax on capital so as to offset the federal cut-backs in established programs financing.
Mr. Speaker, I am talking about $82 million. Yes, $82 million for this year alone.
With respect to equalization, Mr. Speaker, as a result of the federal Government's failure to provide at least 95 per cent of the funds due for 1984-85, the Province of Quebec lost $66 million. They talk about negotiations, Mr. Speaker, but if they had negotiated they would surely have found a solution.
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government.. . Members opposite are signalling that I should stop. True enough, Mr. Speaker, perhaps it would be better to stop, for we have a lot to tell them about negotiations-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member has 13 minutes left.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.

Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, last month a member of the City of Toronto Department of Health, Katherine Davies, with the assistance of funding from the International Joint Commission, prepared and published a report dealing with the chemical content of a typical basket of fresh produce from southern Ontario. In that study she found that typical food basket contained dozens and dozens of toxic chemicals, including DDT, PCBs, and dioxins.
She found as well that pesticides which had been banned in Canada by the federal Government some 10 or 15 years ago were identified in those fresh fruits and vegetables in such a way as to indicate that either they were still present in our environment after 10 to 15 years, or, alternatively, somehow or other they were coming through the atmosphere and there was a fall out in our countryside which was causing this chemical
June 16, 1986

contamination. She found that most of the toxic chemicals are in vegetables, milk, eggs and meat, with only a very small part in fruit. On the other hand, she found that dioxin, which is one of the most deadly of all man-made chemicals, was found mainly in fresh fruit.
Traces of the deadliest variety of dioxin were found in milk and leafy vegetables. The level of toxic chemicals found in those foods was 80 times higher than the Ontario guidelines say is safe for consumption. She found there were more toxic chemicals in food than there were actually in water. She found, as far as human exposure to toxic chemicals from these sources was concerned, something in the order of 86 per cent was from food, 11 per cent from water and 3.5 per cent from the air we breathe.
The study is alarming. It is actually frightening when one thinks that every day of every week of every month each of us are consuming fresh fruit and vegetables from our countryside which contain these high levels of toxic chemicals. One environmental commentator indicated that perhaps an apple a day, which we used to think would keep the doctor away, may very well see us end up in a cancer ward.
The study pointed out that Ontario fruit and vegetables are no different from fruit and vegetables anywhere in the world. In fact, if we suddenly went off the consumption of Ontario fruit and vegetables and started eating imported fruit and vegetables, we would be exposing ourselves to the same toxic chemicals and perhaps worse. It was suggested, for example, that by eating pears imported from Mexico we would be exposing ourselves to DDT, which is legal there.
What all of this seems to show is that no matter what we do in the way of banning toxic chemicals, no matter what we do to try and prevent their impact on us, there is a form of international pollution; that we have a great circulation of air carrying these pollutants with a fall out that lands right on top of us here in Canada.
I think this was probably brought home to us most dramatically by the recent events in Chernobyl in the Soviet Union. There we saw the nuclear power plant disaster having an impact, not only in the Soviet Union itself, but in eastern Europe, northern Europe, western Europe and, to some extent, even in North America.
It is becoming clear that there is a circulation of air masses causing a fall out which can occur anywhere in the world. This is going to have an impact on what we eat and the toxic chemicals in our food chain. What is it that we can do about this? I hope tonight perhaps we will have some answers from the Parliamentary Secretary. It seems to me there are at least two things we should be doing ourselves. First, we should be carrying on a much more sophisticated and careful monitoring process to make sure that we know what is going into the foods that we are consuming.
Adjournment Debate
The Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of the Environment do a certain amount of this now. It seems to me that with these new findings from the Davies report we should be doing more and more of this type of research.
The second thing, of course, is to have finally enacted in this country some environmental control legislation. That has been promised by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan). It was promised some time ago but we have yet to see it. I hope tonight the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us exactly when we are going to have that legislation introduced to Parliament.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, the Member for York East (Mr. Redway) has shown a continuing interest since becoming a Member of Parliament in matters concerning the environment. I am pleased to be able to respond to his concerns, which have been brought about because of a report which was released the week ending May 17, which revealed very low levels of various chemical substances, including dioxins, in foods collected in the Great Lakes area.
This report relates to a study conducted by Doctor Kate Davies of the Toronto Department of Public Health. Doctor Davies reported her findings on May 19, 1986, at the World Large Lakes Conference held at Mackinac Island in Michigan. Thus, there may well be questions of concern by the public as to whether or not dioxin contamination of the food supply is increasing, and if food represents a hazard to public health.
At the outset, it is extremely important to emphasize that Doctor Davies' study and other studies, including those conducted by the Health Protection Branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare, do not imply any imminent hazard to health.
A draft of the recent Davies report has been examined by officials in the light of existing data from branch food monitoring programs. Staff have been unable to confirm the high levels of dioxins and furans reportedly found in fresh fruit and vegetables.
The Health Protection Branch has been monitoring the food supply across Canada for over 10 years, and it has been doing this to detect the presence of pesticides and related compounds such as PCBs, dioxins and furans. Our data indicates that the levels of these substances in the Canadian food supply are no different than those reported in other parts of the world. In addition, results of monitoring food at the retail level in Ontario do not differ from those in any other region in the country.
Thus, consumers should continue to eat fresh fruit and vegetables and other foods without fear. Indeed, the hazards associated with avoiding such nutritious foods are potentially far greater than any risks resulting from exposure to low levels of these chemical contaminants.

June 16, 1986
Adjournment Debate
Several aspects of Doctor Davies' study also warrant further comment. First, the study was intended to identify the major routes of human exposure to certain chemical contaminants, including dioxins. The results are in general agreement with the Health Protection Branch's findings that food is a major route of exposure. The actual levels of dioxins reported in the various foods analysed in this study must, however, be interpreted cautiously. Officials have advised that the number of samples analysed was extremely small, and in the case of fruits and vegetables, samples were not washed prior to analysis as would normally be done in the home.
In conclusion, these factors taken together with other available information, support the view that the reported results for dioxins in produce may be too high and not representative of actual levels in such foods as consumed.
[ Translation]


NATIONAL DEFENCE-REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF STUDY ON IMPACT OF SHOOTING RANGE PROPOSED FOR LAC SAINT-JEAN REGION
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen) is taking steps to expropriate some 130 kilometres of land in the Saguenay-Lac Saint-Jean region in order to provide for a shooting range for the F-18 bomber. In spite of massive local opposition to that militaristic move, the Conservative Government will not reconsider its decision. The Coalition against the Shooting Range includes more than 85 organizations, of which 14 municipalities, 7 regional school boards and the Quebec wing of the New Democratic Party.
The development of that training area was the subject of a campaign by the Minister of National Defence, the Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard) and the local Conservative MPs. Far from defending the interests of their constituents and their communities, those Members actively supported the interests of the military establishment. In 1984, for instance, the Secretary of State said he saw no reason to proceed with the plans if citizens in the area opposed it. But that same Secretary of State has now flip-flopped. He is warning citizens that if they oppose the development of that shooting range, they will jeopardize the whole base and the many jobs that depend on it. That kind of political blackmail is totally unacceptable and is a terrible insult to the population of the Saguenay-Lac Saint-Jean region.
The Coalition against the Shooting Range is fighting that proposal for two basic reasons: (1) An important question of principle-peace. This probably would be the first time in Canadian history that a shooting range would be developed in peacetime. Citizens in the area feel that this is a disheartening precedent. The funds allotted for the project should rather be used for civilian purposes-education, health care, child care and social services. They should be invested in the community to enhance its social and economic development. (2) The democratic, popular will. Surveys show that two citizens out of three oppose the shooting range.
I, for one, have tabled in the House of Commons petitions with over 3,000 signatures against this project, not to mention that the Government never consulted the citizens of the area but presented his proposal as a "/air accompli".
For months the Government had been asked by the Coalition to make the impact study public. Now, after much dillydallying and foot-dragging, it has finally made it public. Unfortunately, we find that it raises quite serious questions.
The study covers only an area of 80 kilometers, while the F-18s need for training an area of 200 kilometers. Over half these missions will have longer ranges which puts in question the study's basic assumption. The bombers' flights would take place over a fairly extended area, something untouched by the impact study.
People wonder also whether these F-18s will be armed with nuclear missiles such as the Bomarc. By the way, two F-18s crashed recently in Alberta and one in Prince Edward Island. The Coalition feels that these operations are carried out over an area too close to the human habitat.
The Federal Government's impact study has not even convinced the Quebec Government, which is seeking further information on the reasons which have convinced the Federal Government that it would save $8 million by choosing the Bagotville site.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, NDP supporters in Ottawa and Quebec, together with the Saguenay-Lac Saint-Jean people, demand that the Conservatives abandon this project. They will be able to build this shooting range only by disregarding the wishes of the people in the area. On the other hand, this project will have repercussions on the local fishing and hunting tourist industry and could put at risk the lives of thousands of area residents.
The Secretary of State's political blackmail is unacceptable in this Parliament: Let us not take hostages the residents of that area. The Secretary of State's threats should not force them to renounce their principles. NPD supporters insist that the Government abandon its militaristic option and listen to the Saguenay-Lac Saint-Jean residents. Their message is loud and clear: No shooting range either here or elsewhere!


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if, just at the very outset, I might call upon the Hon. Member not to be quite so alarmist. There is no suggestion that any use of this or any other range existing in Canada would involve the use of nuclear weapons and, to suggest so, is quite irresponsible. Indeed, it is alarmist. I think the Hon. Member has been around here long enough to know that that is just a little bit irresponsible of him.
June 16, 1986

As usual, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) is quick to criticize even though he has very little understanding or knowledge of the issue at hand. At the time when the Hon. Member made the point that the study on the impact of the shooting range proposed for the Lac St. Jean region was not yet public, the fact of the matter is, it had already been given out by the Base Commander of CFB Bagotville. In fact, as soon as he requested it directly from the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Andre), a copy was sent to him.
As the Associate Minister said in the House on March 25 and again on April 11, negotiations between the federal Government and the provincial Government of Quebec for a suitable location are now taking place. We are confident that these negotiations will be successful. Indeed, the land involved is part of the Crown lands of the Province of Quebec, so the decision ultimately rests with the Government of Quebec.
Environmental concerns have been paramount in our search for a suitable location for this range. The Government and, indeed, the people of Canada, consider military forces to be essential for the preservation of our national sovereignty and for our contribution to world peace through deterrence. It is essential that military personnel be properly trained and their equipment tested in order to meet Canada's defence objectives. An air weapons range in this area would be an essential training facility and a cost effective means of developing and maintaining the necessary capabilities.
Once again, I would call on the Hon. Member to be careful about the use of his language. The suggestion concerning the use of nuclear weapons in this area is quite, quite irresponsible.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE-USE OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGE OF CHOICE-SUPREME COURT DECISION. (B) REQUEST THAT THE GOVERNMENT MODIFY THE LAW-FEDERAL PROSECUTORS TO USE OFFICAL LANGUAGE OF ACCUSED
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, recently, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled, and these are my own words, that any citizen may use either French or English in Parliament and in our federal courts, but has no right to be heard in his own language. In my humble opinion, Mr. Speaker, this is clearly a step backward for linguistic equity in Canada, and will create many problems in the years to come.
By its restrictive interpretation of certain clauses, based on the political compromise that lay at the basis of our language legislation and on the distinction between language rights and the right to a fair trial, this judgment, in my view, limits the scope of the constitutional protection granted to the country's language minorities.
On May 6, I therefore put a question to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie), which was whether in practice, his Government would adopt a policy whereby the official language of a citizen would be used both in criminal proceedings and other spheres under federal jurisdiction, such as expropriation proceedings, immigration, the Combines
Adjournment Debate
Investigation Act, the Immigration Act, the Customs Act, and so forth.
The Minister answered that there would be amendments to the relevant legislation before the year was out, and he gave me the assurance that his Government would make clear that the use of both official languages would be treated equally in federal courts.
The Minister also gave me the assurance that his Government had done everything it could to improve bilingual services in the courts, including opening language training to both provincial and federal judges.

The Supreme Court interpreted the court clause of Section 133 of the Constitution Act of 1867. This provides that either of our languages, English of French, may be used by any person or in any pleading or process in or ensuing from any court of Canada established under this Act, or in or from all or any of the courts of Quebec. In Societe Acadienne du Nouveau-Brunswick, the Supreme Court interpreted similar language in Section 19(2) of the Charter of Rights. Despite minor variation of language, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 133 and Section 19(2) "are of the same nature and scope", and I quote that from page 6 of that decision.
These provisions obviously give a right to speak either official language in federal, Quebec and New Brunswick courts. The question raised in each case was whether the right to speak imposed duties on the state to facilitate that right. In Societe Acadienne du Nouveau-Brunswick, the question was whether the right to speak either official language implied a right to be heard and understood by the court in the language spoken. In MacDonald, the question was whether the right to speak either official language in court implied a right to receive court documents in the recipient's official language.
The Supreme Court ruled that the constitutional right to speak either language is limited and specific. It is the right of the speaker only; it gives no right to be understood or to receive court documents in the official language.
Because the Supreme Court ruled that constitutional provisions to speak in the legislatures or the courts are rights of the speaker only, and do not impact on the hearer or recipient of documents, the following, in my opinion, now applies. According to the court, there is no right to receive court processes in the official language of choice. Court clerks and judges may issue summonses or other procedural documents in the language they choose, regardless of the language spoken by the person to whom the document is addressed. Second, there is no right to a translation of a summons or other court document. Third, the state has no duty to guarantee that speakers in court will be heard or understood in the official language of choice, or to facilitate the right to speak either English or French.

June 16, 1986
Adjournment Debate
Probably the most significant impact of the MacDonald and Societe Acadienne Nationale du Nouveau-Brunswick cases is the new approach to constitutional provisions for official bilingualism that the Supreme Court now takes. The court held that Section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and Sections 17 to 19 of the Charter, are a "constitutional minimum". The court denied that Section 133 is part of any coherent scheme or system of official bilingualism, even potentially. The Supreme Court of Canada will interpret these provisions literally and narrowly. The court will not use a "dynamic and progressive" interpretation to protect official language communities. The court will be stingy. It follows that legislatures and administrations are entitled to interpret present constitutional guarantees for official bilingualism literally and narrowly as a minimum.
Bilingual services in quasi-judicial provincial agencies are not necessary, contrary to the advice of constitutional lawyers prior to these cases. At all points where questions are raised whether a particular program or service has to be provided in the minority language, legislatures and administrations can feel justified in erring on the side of stinginess, since that is the approach the Supreme Court will take on review.
In my humble opinion, to rule as did the Supreme Court of Canada-I am paraphrasing again-that a person has the right to use either French or English in our Parliament and federal courts, but that same person has no right to be understood-the right of interpretation is at odds here-is a significant set-back to language equality in Canada and will create numerous problems over the next few years.
The minimum this Government can and should do is, first, to seek immediately an amendment to our Constitution with provincial concurrence to give it real teeth.
Second, it should study carefully what kind of legislative schemes can be put in place to overcome the difficulties created by the Supreme Court decision so as to give real equality of status to official languages.
Finally, there is the whole question of language of work in the Public Service which requires urgent action in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision. Since the court has effectively removed the teeth from Section 16 that some proponents thought that section contained, we should consider a special task force to study and solve this important question, that is, language of work in the Public Service.
I deplore that decision. I think it has set back language minorities and language in general by many years. I look forward to hearing the Parliamentary Secretary's response on this matter.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I listened with much interest to the comments made by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). I would like to give him a
somewhat more detailed answer than the one the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) could give him when he first asked his question on May 6, 1986.
But first, the decision reached by the Supreme Court of Canada having been criticized I believe by minority groups across the country, it must be placed in context. Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada cannot be blamed for taking out the edge off Section 16, as the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier puts it, when that edge never was there. It is not the responsibility of the Supreme Court of Canada to legislate by adjudication. That responsibility rests with of Parliament. This is indeed the reason why the Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, has ordered a full review of this Government's language policy, along with a review of the Official Languages Act.
Mr. Speaker, I realize the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier was paraphrasing.
The Supreme Court of Canada did not hold that someone could appear before any Court, whether of federal or provincial jurisdiction, and not be understood in his own language. The ruling of the Court was that Section 16 and the Section in the Constitution did not give a person the right to require that the person hearing him should understand him in his own language. However, the system must not be ridiculed. It has always been the rule in common law that a person should be understood, and the Court did not address the question of the means by which someone was to be understood.
However, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) may be interested in knowing that, only two weeks ago, I was in Moncton, New Brunswick, for the annual meeting of the Societe des Acadiens du Nouveau-Brunswick, and the two Leaders of the major political parties in the province agreed in principle to amend the Constitution to entrench the right of an Acadian and New Brunswick francophone to be understood in his own language before the courts.
This is already an important step, Mr. Speaker, and for the first time since it was adopted this Government has begun a review and thorough study of the Official Languages Act. Before year's end, amendments will be introduced to deal with the questions that were before the Supreme Court of Canada and other improvements will be made to the legislation so that English and French will indeed be the two official languages of the country, in the full sense of the words, and so that Canadians from every region of the country, at least in matters under federal jurisdiction, will be able to benefit from it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, June 17, 1986