1986-05-05

Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honor to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to the following seven petitions: 331-365, 331-367 to 331-372 inclusive.



COMMUNICATIONS AND CULTURE


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, concerning the appointment by Order in Council of Marjorie Halpin as a member of the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board.
The Committee considers that Mrs. Alpine has the qualifications and competence required to perform the duties of the position to which she has been appointed.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.)



REPRESENTATION AND ELECTORAL DISTRICT READJUSTMENT ACT (ONTARIO)

[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Private Members' Business
September 24, 1985-Mr. Foster-Second reading and reference to a Legislative Committee of Bill C-249, an Act to readjust the representation of Ontario in the House of Commons and to readjust the electoral districts in Ontario.
['Agreed.', 'May 5, 1986\nPoint of Order-Mr. Lewis']
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions between the Parties with respect to Private Members' Business this afternoon. I think that if Your Honour were to put the following motion to the House, you would find that it would meet with unanimous consent. It states:
That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order of this House, the item listed as number one on the Order of Precedence of Private Members' Business in today's Order Paper and Notices shall be placed at the bottom of the said Order of Precedence for the next sitting day; and
Provided that the House shall continue with the business before it at 5:00 o'clock p.m. this day until the ordinary daily hour of adjournment.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 553.


Mr. Riis: From 1979 to date, what was the total value of the tax expenditure arising from the ability of corporations to deduct the cost of borrowed funds used for the purposes of taking over other corporations?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Statistics are not captured by Revenue Canada on expenses incurred by various corporations.


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


Mr. Speaker:: The question enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

May 5, 1986
Point of Order-Mr. Lewis



POINTS OF ORDER


Mr. Speaker:: I indicated to Hon. Members who wished to make procedural arguments about another matter that they would be free to make them now. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans).


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deans:: Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to yield to the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) since he spoke first on the prior occasion, and then I will follow him if Your Honour so wishes.


Mr. Speaker:: On the procedural question, the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson).


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I thought it might be helpful if I were to offer for your consideration some precedents on this point. The practice of requesting a Government response to certain recommendations contained in Public Accounts Committee reports has been used for a number of years. I have before me some examples.
The eighth report of the Public Accounts Committee concerning CIDA was tabled on October 22, 1985. Of the eight recommendations, the Government was asked to respond to only three. On February 13, 1986, the Government's response to those recommendations was tabled. On March 26, 1986, CIDA responded to the remainder of the recommendations.
The twentieth report of the Public Accounts Committee dealing with the Canada Post Corporation was tabled on May 30, 1983, in the first session of the thirty-second Parliament. Pursuant to the then Standing Order 69(13), two ministerial responses were received to recommendation 7(a) on September 19 and 27 of 1983.
The last precedent concerns the eighteenth report on the Canadian Dairy Commission which was tabled on March 29, 1983, during the first session of the thirty-second Parliament. A Government response was requested to recommendation 6(a) and one was received on July 11, 1983.
1 would like to take a moment to explain why this practice has been followed. It is because reports dealing with departments or agencies sometime refer to broad and related policy objectives and the individual department or agency may not be able to respond to a recommendation because it needs an overall government statement. For example, in the case of the eighth report of the Public Accounts Committee concerning CIDA, the committee was concerned with problems of planning and monitoring procurement which involved economic and regional concerns. Clearly this was an area that needed a Government response since it concerned many departments.
Second, in the case of overlapping or divided jurisdiction, a department or agency cannot provide a response, and this is somewhat the same issue, if the response is directly involved through legislative or ministerial direction. Again, in the case of the eighth report of CIDA, the committee was concerned about divided responsibilities for the Food Aid Program. CIDA is involved with three departments and therefore the committee requested that the Government clarify the roles of the various departments and agencies.
In the case before us, most of the recommendations were addressed to the Public Service Commission which is responsible to Parliament, but there were recommendations concerning the division of responsibilities between the Public Service Commission and the Treasury Board which seemed to the members of the committee to call for a Government response.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I think the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) has covered most of the salient points. Suffice it to say, therefore, that I agree with the precedents she has brought forward as being relevant in this particular case.
I would like to make the point that in this particular report, it is primarily referenced to the commission itself, and that in this one instance under No. 15(b), it requests from the Government a certain response. It would be possible, I would say, for the Commission to prepare a comprehensive report without dealing with the question of the Government response. That report could therefore be submitted to the House of Commons.
However, more importantly, in the interest of common sense, I think we all understand that it would be possible for a committee to file a number of separate reports if it were determined that it could not ask for specific responses to specific items within one report. It would be possible for a committee, for example, to have held more than one day of hearings and to report on its deliberations as they affect the Commission and then on its deliberations as they affect the Government. That would stand as two separate reports which of course would have to be responded to in any event. To put a committee into a position of having to go through that rather false procedure rather than to simply allow it to highlight that part of the single report which refers directly to a Government responsibility would, in my opinion, be counter-productive and would not make much sense in the way in which committees operate.
I would respectfully urge, Sir, that you find that it is appropriate in the circumstances and is not in any way denied as a right under Standing Orders for a committee from time to time, on matters that refer directly to Government operations, to draw the attention of the Government to its specific request for a government response to a part of a report which in fact would normally be responded to by the Commission itself.
May 5, 1986

[ Translation]


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker,
I want to thank the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) for making this clear. I am also in favour of a committee being able to request a Government response to certain recommendations in its report. 1 think there is a very good case for this if we look at the mandate of the Public Accounts Committee as set forth in Standing Order 96(3), which includes, among other matters, review of and report on the Public Accounts of Canada and all reports of the Auditor General of Canada which shall be severally deemed permanently referred to the Committee immediately they are laid on the Table.
Mr. Speaker, the point I am trying to make is that we have a report dealing with two agents of Parliament, the Auditor General of Canada, who examines all public accounts, and another agent of Parliament, the Public Service Commission, which has certain obligations under its legislation with respect to applying the merit principle. Mr. Speaker, this report contains a recommendation to the Government which is addressed directly to Treasury Board, not to the Commission.
Perhaps upon reading this transcript, the Commission will understand that there has been no oversight on our part and that we are indeed anxious to see the Commission meet the 30 September deadline as requested by the Committee, and that while the Government is being asked to give its response to 15 (b), the Commission will have an obligation to respond to all other recommendations by September 30,1986.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank Hon. Members. That is helpful to the Chair. The Chair will reserve and consider all the arguments.



RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS-MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY-SPEAKER'S RULING

Mr. Speaker:: I thought it would be useful if I now respond to the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) last Thursday. I would rather do this before Question Period.
In effect, the Hon. Member rose on a point of order to ask the Chair to consider the question of who could answer questions. I think that is the right way to put it. Perhaps the best way I can say this to the House is to start by simply reminding the House that questions are asked to the ministry as a whole or, if you will, to the Government. While questionners may, as a courtesy, indicate the Minister the questionner believes has responsibility for the matter, it is perfectly in order for the Government not to answer and in fact no specific Minister can be compelled or required to answer.
Should the Government decide to reply, it is in order for any Minister who has ministerial responsibility either directly or in an acting capacity to answer for the Government. There is, of course, occasionally a difficulty for the Chair because the Chair may not know who is in an acting capacity. In that case, as has
Point of Order-Mr. Deans
happened in one case, the Chair asks for an explanation as to the capacity in which the Minister was replying.
Finally, because of the over-all responsibilities of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), it is perfectly in order for the Prime Minister or for the Acting Prime Minister to respond to any or all questions. Again, neither the Prime Minister nor the Acting Prime Minister can be compelled or required to answer any question.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, may I seek clarification on the ruling? Would I be correct, then, in assuming that if the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) were present in the House of Commons, quite clearly he would be the Acting Prime Minister and would therefore be the person who would have to answer if he were answering for anyone in the Government and that therefore the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen), in the presence of the Prime Minister, would not be able to rise and take the place of the Prime Minister since the Prime Minister was already present? The second point I would seek clarification on is whether there can be a Minister other than the Minister who is specifically charged with the responsibility for administering a department or ministry who could be deemed to be acting on behalf of that Minister in the Minister's presence, other than the Prime Minister, were he present, or the Deputy Prime Minister, were the Prime Minister absent. This is very key to some of the problems that arose.
I do understand that another Minister could be designated as an Acting Minister but he cannot be the Acting Minister if the Minister is present. That solves one part of my problem, I think. The other question then is if the Deputy Prime Minister is here but also if the Prime Minister is here, it would be up to the Prime Minister to answer or nobody to answer.


Mr. Speaker:: In fairness, the day about which the Hon. Member was asking, the Deputy Prime Minister was here in his capacity as Acting Prime Minister and that is the point of order the Hon. Member raised and on which I have replied. I take it the Hon. Member is now asking me to consider a different point of order.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the House Leader for the New Democratic Party has raised a novel point. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) will understand that in this Government, we have a Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and a Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen). Obviously the Deputy Prime Minister assists the Prime Minister in the performance of a multitude of responsibilities.


Ian Deans: But he has no status in the House of Commons.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, indeed he has status in the House of Commons as Deputy Prime Minister and is so recognized as a member of Cabinet in that responsibility.

May 5, 1986
Point of Order-Mr. Deans


Ian Deans: No, he is a member of Cabinet as the Minister of National Defence.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Notwithstanding the protestations of the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans)-


Ian Deans: I am right, and you know it.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I find it difficult-


Ian Deans: You are wrong.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I always know that I am on the right course when the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain attempts to shout or to interject from his seat.


Ian Deans: I am not shouting.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: In this particular instance, there has been specific indication from the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) that he indeed was fulfilling a role as Deputy Prime Minister for the Prime Minister in respect of conflict of interest questions which have nothing to do with the carrying on of a responsibility of any department or line department. In any event, I simply reiterate that the Deputy Prime Minister is precisely that.


Ian Deans: No, no.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He assists the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) in the performance of his responsibilities and duties and, accordingly, would have a very broad mandate to answer questions on behalf of the Government in that particular capacity.


Ian Deans: In that it is a very important point-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not want this to become a debate.


Ian Deans: It is a vitally important point. I just want to indicate-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I will interrupt you.


Ian Deans: I urge my colleague to interject if he wishes.
There is no such person as the Deputy Prime Minister within the rules of the House of Commons. In order to hold a cabinet position, the Deputy Prime Minister had to be either the President of the Privy Council in the first place or now the Minister of National Defence in order to sit in Cabinet, since there is no cabinet position for which remuneration can be paid as designated Deputy Prime Minister. However, that individual can be designated as the spokesman for the Government and the Acting Prime Minister, as can any other cabinet Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister's role is only within the mind of the Conservative Party.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: No. We have had Deputy Prime Ministers for many moons.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is becoming difficult. Hon. Members are now rising on an entirely separate point of order arising out of a ruling on a different point of order. May I simply reserve on what we have heard so far. Does the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) have a different point of order?


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. As the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) raised his initial point of order arising out of a question which I had put, I am seeking some clarification. I understand that if the Deputy Prime Minister, or whatever title he happens to hold, is in the House, in the absence of the Prime Minister, he is entitled to field a whole range of questions on any departmental responsibility in the same way as the Prime Minister is entitled to intervene.
What I should like to know is whether the Deputy Prime Minister is entitled to do that and to take questions which relate to a particular department at a time that the Prime Minister is in the House, or is the Government obliged-


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. That is exactly the question the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) just raised. The Hon. Member is simply repeating it. I have indicated that I will reserve on it, with respect.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, May 2, 1986, 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 second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendment of Mr. Murphy (p. 12683).
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, we must now focus on Bill C-96 which affects federal grants for postsecondary education and especially for health insurance, established programs that are financed by the provinces.
My purpose in taking part in this debate is mainly to discuss the particular problems of Quebec, starting with the $66-million loss incurred by that province as a result of the federal Government's decision not to meet its commitment to maintaining subsidies for established programs financing at 95 per cent of what was paid during the previous year.
May 5, 1986

Apparently, Mr. Speaker, in his Budget last Thursday Quebec's new Minister of Finance, Gerard D. Levesque made the best defence of or the best statement about the province's difficulties. In his Budget, Finance Minister Gerard D. Levesque pointed out that Bill C-96 is one further step towards Ottawa's gradual withdrawal from essential services funding. As Quebecers see it, Mr. Speaker, and we in the New Democratic Party share this view, the only way the central Government is going to cut expenditures is by letting the provinces assume responsibility for Established Programs Financing.
According to Mr. Levesque, Mr. Speaker, this is predatory federalism, not co-operative federalism. This is what Mr. Levesque is saying now, but who first made that comment? Mr. Wilson-now Minister of Finance-when he was the Official Opposition financial critic, therefore in 1982.
Truth to tell, Mr. Speaker, like all other provinces, Quebec is put in a very precarious position as a result of Bill C-96. This predicament is due to cutbacks in funding and grants for educational and health insurance programs set up by the former Liberal administration. The situation has been made worse by the federal Government's decision not to give the provinces the full cost of those programs and to cut down-at the annual rate of 2 per cent in real terms-its contribution to these provincially administered-programs.
Mr. Speaker, I would remind you that one of the Conservative solemn promises during the 1984 election campaign was to maintain Established Programs Financing. Here is what they said:
"Position of the Conservative Party: We will go back to the 1977 financing formulae, even though we cannot compensate the provinces for losses incurred through the 6-and-5 program."
So the Conservatives were not quite prepared to compensate the provinces for losses incurred in the past, but they did promise to reinstate the 1977 financing formula.
They made that promise during the 1984 election campaign, Mr. Speaker, at the same time as they made a commitment to tackle the deficit. We can therefore assume that the Conservatives had given serious consideration to the problems created by the former Liberal Government and decided they could afford to promise the full reinstatement of the 1977 financing formula in spite of cash shortages and the deficit problem. So what happens now that they are at the helm? Not only do they fail to maintain the programs established by the Liberals, but they also conveniently forget their promises. They simply will not maintain the Liberals' new formula and they will even deprive the provinces of the funds needed to continue the educational and unemployment insurance programs.
Mr. Speaker, Ottawa now pays roughly 40 per cent of expenditures for education, health and post-secondary education. In 1990-91, its share would be only 36 per cent. These are now shared cost programs.
When the federal Government encouraged the provinces to join medicare, it promised to pay half its cost. The same applied to the program to finance post-secondary education. Now, the share of the federal Government will fall to 36 per cent. This means that the provinces will have to pay the rest, or about 64 per cent of the additional $19 billion which will probably have
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
to be spent for health care and education during the next five years. It has been estimated that the new federal contribution will only amount to $1 billion, which will leave the provinces with a reduced and very unbalanced taxation capacity when we compare the situation in Ontario and Quebec, or the Maritime Provinces, or even Alberta now. These provinces will now have to find the other $18 billion.
This is why, Mr. Speaker, everyone, especially in Quebec, is concerned about the position of this Government. The hypocrisy of this Government is also a source of concern. I would like to refer, Mr. Speaker, and I have the quotations here, to the debate on Bill C-97, which, strangely enough, had nearly the same number as Bill C-96 now under consideration. At the time, Mr. Michael Wilson, then financial critic of the Conservative Official Opposition, said that the federal Government wanted to transfer its financing problem to the provinces. It wanted to displace the deficit problem which had taken monstrous proportions, both federally and provincially. For instance, in its last Budget, Quebec found it very difficult to keep its deficit under $3 billion. Quebec therefore has a problem.
Mr. Speaker, in 1982, Mr. Wilson criticized the federal Government by saying that the only thing it was doing to show its desire to reduce its expenditures was to transfer the burden for Established Programs Financing to the provincial governments. The provinces were beginning to have deficits themselves, which made it much more difficult for them to Finance these displaced expenditures. According to Mr. Wilson, this was especially true in Ontario and the eastern provinces, which did not have the substantial energy revenues of the western provinces. This has changed, but Quebec continues to have financial problems. This is not co-operative federalism, but predatory federalism, and such methods cannot work in Canada. This is what Mr. Wilson said on March 23, 1982. What he is now proposing in Bill C-96 seems to show that he has forgotten what he said four years ago.
Mr. Speaker, I also found a question asked by Mr. Wilson to the former Minister of Finance on February 1, 1982, about the elimination of guaranteed income. He said that the Minister was prepared to risk major cutbacks in medicare and postsecondary education. Instead of hurrying unilaterally in this sector to force cutbacks in provincial expenditures and services, would the Minister be willing, asked Mr. Wilson at the time, to consider holding two or three federal-provincial conferences on health and post-secondary education to develop agreement on the national objectives of the various government levels in these two important sectors before reducing expenditures and before causing cutbacks in hospital services and post-secondary education? Mr. Speaker, is the present Minister of Finance willing to avoid these cutbacks? Is he willing to call these national conferences to define the national objectives? No, he is not. Just like the previous Government, he is acting unilaterally without considering the impact of his actions on Quebec or the other provinces.

May 5, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to quote the comments of Mr. Roch La Salle, the present Minister of Public Works, at the third reading stage of Bill C-77, on April 5, 1982. According to him, one thing was clear, and that was that, a new formula, the federal Government would have been better off than before since it would pay $5 billion less in the following five years than under the old formula. Those facts are inescapable, Mr. Speaker. And we know indeed that the cost of those services that are so vital to all Canadians is increasing and will keep increasing, in tune with the current economic conditions.
Mr. Speaker, the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle) said the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has crammed the provinces into a financial strait-jacket because the Federal Government is reducing the deficit by slashing transfer payments to the provinces. He goes on to say that this Bill involves billions of dollars and has very important ramifications for the service areas concerned.
I cannot understand, said the Minister when he was speaking for the Opposition, why the Government did not succeed in reaching a consensus and an acceptable compromise. He concluded by saying: Because of its actions, attitude and arrogance, the Government has succeeded in creating a climate of suspicion.
Mr. Speaker, I could not myself do a better job of saying that than the present Minister of Public Works when he was the Opposition critic. It is because of its actions, its attitude, its arrogance that the Tory Government is now creating all those problems with the provinces, including Quebec. The Conservatives are the ones who made those big promises, those generous promises: They would maintain the 1977 formula. No cuts! They would restore the situation to what it was before cuts were introduced by the Liberals. Mr. Speaker, what we now find is that the Conservatives have turned out to be the new Liberals. They are just so bad as the Liberals who were in Government before September, 1984.
I put the question to you, Mr. Speaker, you are a politician of great ability. You know the situation in Quebec because you are yourself a Quebecer. Could you yourself see any difference between the Liberals under Pierre Trudeau and the Conservatives under Mr. Mulroney? Were Mr. MacEachen's policies when he was Minister of Finance any different from the policies of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) as regards those cuts and the funding formula for health and post-secondary education, where Quebec is concerned? Mr. Speaker, if you are really sincere and honest, you will resume your place and respond by suggesting that no, you can see no difference at all, other than you are Tories and the others are Grits. Mr. Speaker, we in our Party can see no difference.
I remember my Leader asking this question during the elections: What is actually the difference between Visa and Mastercard? It was tweedledum and tweedledee, as we say in English. They are the same. It might even be said, Mr. Speaker,
that there could be a slight difference in that the Conservatives are worse, because they added other cuts on top of those that were imposed by the Liberals.
Let us now look at the impact of those cuts, Mr. Speaker. In Quebec, for instance, the estimated loss for 1986-87, besides the $66 million already lost by Quebec, will be $81.9 million; in 1987-88, the loss will be $174.9 million; in 1988-89, $276 million; in 1989-90, $388.8 million; in 1990-91, Quebec will lose more than $500 million that are essential to pay for postsecondary education and to keep our hospitals open, to ensure a good level of health services to Quebecers. When the people of Quebec elected 57 Conservative Members during the last elections, it was like chicken voting for Colonel Sanders. Now they will be losing $500 million a few years ahead, in terms of health services and post-secondary education. The total over those five years, Mr. Speaker, will be $2,435.4 million. Now, what does that mean?
I therefore appeal to Hon. Members here, because Conservative Members from Quebec apparently do not wish to get involved in the debate. The guarantees which were given by the Minister of Finance and other Conservative Members to the Opposition, to the effect that such cuts would have just one result. They will decrease Quebec's ability to really enter the post-industrial age, to maintain a capacity to lead with state-of-the-art technology, to maintain its ability to compete in a very difficult world. All this because of the cuts that will be hitting Quebec's post-secondary education and community colleges.
Such cuts, Mr. Speaker, amounting to $2,435.4 million over five years, cannot but affect the province's health services.
Now Montrealers will perhaps continue to enjoy satisfactory health care. However, will the Quebec Government be in position to maintain those same standards in Rimouski, on the North Shore, in the Abitibi and in all other Quebec areas? I would say that the answer is probably no. People will have to travel to Montreal to obtain the services that are unavailable in their own area.
The entire province will suffer from a reduction which will increase as far as hospital beds are concerned.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all the Quebec Members who are here this question: Are you proud of your performance as elected representatives now forming a new Government? You had promised so many things to Quebecers, but they will now suffer still more as a result of additional cuts to those already made by the previous Liberal Government.
Mr. Speaker, I ask those Members to give their views on that prejudicial Bill and tell us what should be done in Quebec.
As we know, Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of the Bill is that payments for the financing of established programs will be cut by 2 per cent per year.
May 5, 1986

It means that if we have a 5 per cent inflation, the tax points and grants provided by the Government to maintain educational and health services will be increased. Instead of increasing by 5 per cent, they will according to the old formula, that is by 3 per cent. This does not seem much in a one or two-year period. However, as I have shown, for a longer period, the impact increases every year and the total impact for the entire country will be about $6 billion. This is what we are discussing today in this House of Commons and for Quebec which is experiencing problems in terms of subsidization of very important programs for the future of its population and its competition capacity, this represents a loss of $1.4 billion.
Mr. Speaker, I challenge all Tory Members from Quebec. Defend those cuts which I say are indefensible. If no Quebec Member is to rise during the remainder of the debate, I will say that those cuts are indefensible and that not a single Tory Member was willing to fight for them. They all know, those 57 Tory Members from Quebec, and they all admit by not taking part in the debate that those cuts are indefensible.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments?


Michael Morris Cassidy: No question, no comment? Where are the Members?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments? The Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy).
[DOT] (M40)


Mr. Murphy:: Mr. Speaker, I will take this opportunity to ask the Hon. Member a question. I wish one of the government back-benchers will take advantage of the opportunity as well. This legislation has a negative effect on provinces throughout the country. Promises were made to the Province of Quebec in the past which are not being kept and I think it is ironic that no Member on the Government side, and particularly no Member from Quebec, has asked a question although directly challenged by the Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) to do so.
This same matter was debated in 1981-82. The Liberals, with a massive majority of Quebec MPs, passed legislation at that time which reduced the federal commitment to postsecondary education, medicare, and hospital services. At that time 74 out of 75 Quebec Members were Liberals and they would not speak up for their province. At that time the Conservatives attacked the Liberals. The present Ministers of Finance (Mr. Wilson), National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), and Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) condemned the federal Government for its treatment of the Province of Quebec, among other provinces. They were right in doing so.
Government Members, especially Quebec Members, should read the speeches of the present Ministers of Finance, National Health and Welfare, and Employment and Immigration. Government Members should read how those Ministers
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
criticized the Liberal Government and the Liberal backbenchers at that time. History is repeating itself but no one is standing up for the people in the Province of Quebec and elsewhere who are affected. I ask my hon. colleague to comment on that.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I find this strange. I appreciate that, as Speaker of the House today, it may be more difficult for you to resume your seat and take up the challenge which I have just issued. Nevertheless, you have many colleagues who are now here or watching the debate on TV. It is rumored, because the Progressive Conservative Party has only a one per cent edge on the New Democratic Party, according to the most recent poll, that a number of Conservative Members from Quebec have come to the conclusion that they will lose their seats unless they become very active in their respective ridings.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that the best way for them to demonstrate that they are truly concerned about their constituents' interests would be to rise, not only in their own caucus, but here in the House, to deal openly with the problems created by the decisions originating from the Cabinet. The Cabinet is not made up of strangers, for several Quebec Members are Ministers. There are strong men, such as the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse), who are Members of the Cabinet and represent Quebec. Mr. Speaker, it may not be necessary for a Quebec PC Member to use the same expressions as I did. We all know that even remarks that are only slightly critical, that address the issue, are better than nothing.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, as my colleague the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) has just indicated, just as Liberal Members from Quebec were silent in 1982 when we had to deal with the same issues in Bills C-77 and C-12, so are Conservative Members from Quebec now. I deplore this shyness on the part of the Quebec representatives in both the former Liberal Government and the present Conservative Government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Debate. The Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) has the floor.


Gabriel Fontaine: As I was listening to the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) comparing the Progressive Conservative Party to the Liberal Party, Mr. Speaker, I could not help reflect, to their credit, that at least the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party both have definite party platforms and consistent ideas, while the socialist party of which he is a Member has never had any idea of its own and has never done anything except complain about the stands of either of them and particularize certain issues. That is the remark I wanted to make. The platform of the Liberals is to favour and accelerate the collective and progressive indebtedness of all Canadians, whereas that of the Conservatives is to pay the debts accumulated by the Liberals and to encourage the economic recovery.

May 5, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre is not in a position to advise either me or my Conservative colleagues on the Quebec situation. As a matter of fact, he should have listened to the message which Canadians from Quebec and all the other provinces east of Ontario have sent to this socialist party of his, namely, that they do not care about socialism.
This being said, I am pleased to deal with Bill C-96, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contribution Act, 1977.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, when these arrangements were made, Canada was faced with sky-high inflation rates. At the time, the increases in the federal Government financial contributions to the provinces' established programs were based on rates which were below the sky-high inflation rates of the time. Today, we are indeed proposing a reduction of the growth rate of our additional contributions to the established programs, and we say that our contributions will always be at least superior or equal to the inflation rates, something which did not exist before.
Our Government's contributions will continue to increase, so that over the next five years, our Government will contribute some $90 billion in Established Programs Financing. That is $25 billion more than in the past five years. So let my colleague enquire before he suggests that Quebec will be disadvantaged because of this Government's action.
Since the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre suggested that we were not delivering what we had promised to the Canadian people during the summer of 1984, I have to tell him that he should know that we are indeed carrying out that message and that we have already had a number of very concrete achievements.
Our message developed along three major lines. Firstly, there was the reconciliation of the various provinces, and we were proud, Mr. Speaker, to sign the Eastern Accord on energy, the Western Accord. And never in the past 20 years, Mr. Speaker, have the relationships between my home Province of Quebec and the government in Ottawa been brighter.
So that is one of the aspects of our message. I can easily understand that the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre may resent the fact that we are on excellent terms with the Government of the Province of Quebec. You have always banked on a gap between Quebec and Ottawa, but we Conservatives removed that atmosphere of tension and distance.
I would advise my hon. colleague for Ottawa Centre to try and find out about the aspirations of Quebecers and their desire to belong and to participate in the Canadian Confederation.
We also had another theme, Mr. Speaker, which we discussed during the election campaign, and that was our
economic recovery. Since we were elected in September 1984, unemployment has gone down significantly.
More than half a million new jobs have been created, and this government did not do it the way the Liberals used to in their days, by implementing ad hoc programs in order to create temporary employment followed by unemployment. We developed a context that allowed businessmen ... You will never understand what businessmen are, and I am talking to the Socialist Party, you will never understand that because you are the parasites of the Conservative as well as the Liberal party depending on how it suits you, parasites of the workers because you live off their contributions. So you will never know what a businessman is, a person who can handle the capital and the management of a business, you will never understand that. Businessmen, Mr. Speaker, did get our message and decided to invest, and Mr. Bullock, the Chairman of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, recently stated that there had been an increase of more than 20 per cent in recovery and investment intentions since we took office. This is a true fact that my socialists colleagues should also take note of.
In the package we were offering to the Canadian people, we also said that we were updating our trade relationships with the United States, and you know that the United States trust our sincerity, but they are afraid of our relationships and it was indeed very difficult to get the U.S. Congress to agree to the so-called fast lane for the bilateral trade talks with the United States. Now, the reason they took a very hard line... The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) could listen to me, he might learn something and he certainly needs to.


An Hon. Member:: He is only interested in television.


Gabriel Fontaine: Now, the trade talks with the United States are under way, and those talks will in the first place have a grandfathering effect, as you very well know that 80 per cent of the trade with the United States is unhampered by customs barriers. You should also know that out of a total of $165 billion of goods sold out of Canada, 80 per cent are sold to the United States. This is why it is vital for us, firstly, to preserve our access to that market and, secondly, to enlarge that access to the American market and open up a potential market of 240 million customers to our producers and manufacturers. This also, Mr. Speaker, is what we are delivering to our people. Instead of putting questions to the Conservatives across the aisle, you should do your homework and stop contradicting other people, and that means the people in your own party as well. In fact, that is why you won't have any leadership candidates left in a few months. Well, Mr. Speaker, these were just a few comments I wanted to make to my Socialist colleagues.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite said that the proposed changes would reduce the federal Government's contribution to education from 40 per cent to 36 per cent. What the Hon. Socialist Member should have said is that this Government's
MayS, 1986

spending on transfer payments will represent about 19.4 per cent of the total Budget. There is no reduction in this Government's spending on transfer payments. The Hon. Member might have added that to date, we have signed an impressive number of agreements with Quebec, including agreements on development of the tourist industry, those were signed and you didn't mention them, agreements on science and technology, those were signed and you didn't mention them either, agreements on regional development, those have been signed and you didn't mention them, agreements on forestry, signed again and not mentioned by the Hon. Member. There is an agreement on agriculture about to be signed, and it soon will be, according to a statement made last Thursday in the House by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise). It is now with the Quebec Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Page, and apparently will soon be finalized. These are some of the things that should have been mentioned by the Hon. Member opposite.
The Hon. Member also implied that our Government was passing on its deficit to the provinces. That is certainly a misleading way of putting it in the House, Mr. Speaker, because we have been reducing the deficit by . . . take some notes, they will come in handy when you write a book before leaving politics-
Seventy-five per cent of the deficit reduction proposed to Canadians will come out of reducing the Government's present expenditures, and 25 per cent out of tax increases. Since we have a deficit of $240 billion, I think it is only fair to ask all Canadians-and that is something you have never understood either-to tighten their belts in order to put our country back on the road to prosperity.
And speaking of this country... to ensure their political survival, the Liberals who formed the previous Government were always very fond of thinking up new social programs-in fact, you were in bed with them many times ... in order to win the votes of Canadian men and women. Today, that is over with. No more borrowing to pander to the voters and mortgage our country's political aspirations. Those days are over.
We now have to fight to reduce our $240 billion deficit and you object to this fight against the deficit. You object to the fact that the Government is asking us, Canadians, to make a few sacrifices. When I hear you, I wonder if you are a true Canadian. Where do you think that the Canadian Government will find the money to live according to our means, to reduce our deficit and to stop letting our children and grandchildren pay for what we are spending today and for the mismanagement of the Liberals who were here before us?
Mr. Speaker, the comments made today by the spokesman of the New Democratic Party are unfounded, and in reply to his questions, I can assure him that the representative of Levis is 100 per cent behind the policy of his Government because my own policy is based on the economic facts. A country cannot keep borrowing to pay for its day-to-day operations, but this has
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
never been understood by your party either. Canada must develop structures to promote economic recovery, which has already begun, so that there will be more Canadian contractors and businessmen hiring more people. In this way, we shall be able to sell our products abroad. This is why we are working at the same time on our negotiations with the United States. These are matters that the Hon. Member should appreciate and understand before he tries to speak in this House.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that we are going to defend this Bill and that it will pass. I would like to ask the Members of the Opposition to stop their biased comments and to show that they understand the economic facts so that our Bill may receive quick passage.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments. The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau).


Mr. Garneau:: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that a Conservative Member has been able to take part in this debate and to speak about Bill C-96 not only to the Members of this House, but also, through television, to the entire Canadian population, especially to say what he has just said. If I have understood him correctly, in the context of this debate, the reason for the deficit is that the previous Government spent too much for postsecondary education, medicare and hospital insurance since these are the issues with which this Bill deals.
Mr. Speaker, when we look at this Bill, we find that it amends before it should an agreement signed by the provinces and the federal Government following lengthy discussions to change the way things were done between 1977 and 1982. This Bill re-opens an old discussion but despite what has been said several times, the 6 and 5 program had a very specific objective and it did not affect social programs, medicare or hospital insurance. However, in this Bill, the rules are being changed in the middle or near the end of the game since there was still one year remaining before the expiry date of the 1982-87 federal-provincial agreements, and the provinces will lose $317 million.
Here is my question to the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine): If he were a provincial Government Minister and that half way through his fiscal year he were to receive from the federal Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) a note to the effect that for the next year alone Quebec would get $82 million less for those projects-$114 million in the case of Ontario-would he reduce hospital services, or would he increase university tuition fees? Would he reduce health care provided under health insurance? What would he advocate, and what would he tell those people, knowing as we do that hospital emergency rooms are overcrowded and that patients have to wait for months before being hospitalized? We know as well that postsecondary educational institutions are very hard pressed as a result of huge cutbacks made over the past few years.
I would like to know what the Hon. Member for Levis would recommend to the provincial Education or Finance Ministers to balance their budgets after learning half way through their
12928

May 5, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
fiscal year that the federal Government will not live up to its commitments and reduce transfer payments which had been promised and on which the provinces relied to finance their programs.


Gabriel Fontaine: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I take the liberty of expressing pride at witnessing the quick transition of the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) from the back benches to the front row, right next to the Leader of the Official Opposition. I commend him for his performance, but that is about the last congratulations he will hear from me for a while.
I might point out that when he was Quebec Finance Minister, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides set up various health programs. Well, Mr. Speaker, do you know how much it costs today to keep a patient in a hospital room for one day in the Province of Quebec? As a result of their decisions and the kind of health system we have Quebec, it now costs $550 per day to have someone in hospital in Quebec. This is a result of the action taken by the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides when he was a member of the team managing Quebec.
Secondly, I will point out, in answer to a question asked by the Hon. Member, that the contributions to transfer payments by the Government of Canada remain at 19.4 per cent of its Budget; there is no reduction. 1 will also point out that the economic renewal which we launched in September 1984 largely makes up for the sacrifices the provinces are now asked to make because that renewal has allowed the hiring of people. Over 120,000 new jobs have been created in Quebec and these people will pay taxes and provide funds to the Quebec treasury.
This is not what the Liberals were doing. They created unemployment which did not bring in any money. They had to compensate with additional transfer payments.
1 will also point out to the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides that Canada-Quebec agreements are still being signed and are very generous where Quebec is concerned.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I know that our time is limited, but I would ask the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) who is perhaps quite concerned about the presence of the Socialist Party in the House of Commons to please respond to several arguments which 1 put forth in my speech.
He also seems to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that what I said was unfounded. He ignores the statements made by the Quebec Minister of Finance in his Budget speech last Thursday. They were not casual comments made by the Minister of Finance, but in the well-considered part of his speech, he criticized the federal Government for its reduced assistance to educational programs and medicare.
Also the Hon. Member, when criticizing the Socialist Party, apparently ignored the fact that according to polls there are now more people in his region, in Quebec, who support the New Democratic Party than the Progressive Conservative
Party. This is a historical point in time. But I would like to emphasize the fact that we are starting indeed, we are doing our share to defend Quebecers, much better it would seem than the Progressive Conservative Members are doing.
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member suggests we are wrong when we say that the deficit is being transferred to the provinces. I quoted from the comments made by the former Finance critic of the Official Opposition, who is now Minister of Finance. Now, does the Hon. Member really believe that his Minister of Finance was wrong when he made those criticisms three or four years ago? Mr. Speaker, I suggest the Hon. Member should think that over. The fact that he has touched on almost every subject under the sun without directly supporting the cuts made in those payments under the established program funding, indicates the Bill cannot be defended.


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Center (Mr. Cassidy) once more has missed a beautiful opportunity to remain silent. Is the Hon. Member aware, when referring to polls, that the Socialist Party has no Member whatsoever east of the Ontario border? I would advise him to pay attention at the next election. He will realize that the real poll then will probably result in their losing seats.
Now, when the Hon. Member refers to the speech made by the Quebec Finance Minister, I must inform him that I read the speech and it is on page 14 that he is referring to what Mr.Levesque stated.
Mr. Levesque, speaking as a politician rather than a manager, had to put the blame on somebody else for increasing the tax burden of Quebecers. That is quite normal. But Mr. Levesque is still more competent than you are at managing a province. He knows we are at a point in time when belttightening is in order. You also should have understood the over-all gist of his Budget, the thrust being to use restraint and recognize the constraints imposed by the current deficit. Those constraints were put in place when you were in bed with the Liberals, when they were in power.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A brief question by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper).


Mr. Keeper:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has just said that everybody must share in the sacrifices to reduce the deficit. I should like to know why his Government has reduced the tax rates for the most affluent people in our society? Why have they given the capital gains tax exemption if they really think that everybody has to make sacrifices?


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, this socialist Member does not understand that people are in business to make profits. Theoretically speaking, it is because of these people who are in business that you, people of the socialist party, can live without doing anything. It is thanks of them. They are the people who have achieved a standard of living which allows you to earn a living while complaining about what others are doing and saying.
May 5, 1986

You have never had any philosophy or means to develop the human and natural resources of this country. You are nothing but parasites in the society. That is the reason why there will never be any business development under any socialist system anywhere in the world.


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, no Bill that we have considered since the Tories came to power is more important than Bill C-96. I welcome the amendment that we are debating, which calls for this Bill to be read six months hence in order to give the Government an opportunity to reflect upon the Bill.
I believe that this Bill is disastrous. Not only will it have a bad effect on every Canadian because it endangers our health and our education, it will affect our future in every sense.
The Conservative Government in Ottawa did not ask or consult with the provinces, but unilaterally decided to advise the provinces that the federal Government will cut the expected federal transfer payments to the provinces. Those payments which are to be made for health and education will affect everyone in our country.
The Tory Government in Ottawa did this in spite of the protestations of the provinces and despite the appeals from those who work in the field of education and in the field of health. They warned of the disastrous repercussions coming from this Bill.
Over the next five years the Government will slash $6 billion from these promised transfer payments to the provinces, $4 billion of which should have gone to health and $2 billion of which should have gone to post-secondary education. The Conservative Government in Ottawa is making a grave mistake for which all of us will eventually have to pay. Some of us will pay sooner, in health, and some of us will pay later, in education.
The Government's first grave mistake is that it has shamefully broken almost all of its promises.


An Hon. Member:: That is not true.


Roland de Corneille: Second, it is taking from the weak and giving to the strong; taking from the poor and giving to the rich. The third grave mistake of the Conservative Government is that it is short-sighted. It is cutting back on our richest and most precious treasure-our people.
I said that the Tories had broken their promises and one of the Tory Members across the way said that this was not true.
I will illustrate how the Government has betrayed the people of Canada by not keeping its promises in regard to postsecondary education. Prior to the 1984 election the Canadian Association of University Teachers asked the Government what the future would have in store in the field of postsecondary education financing if the Tories were elected to
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
power. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) supported the official Conservative response before the last election that; "We are committed to sustaining the current federal financial commitment according to the formula set out in the 1977 agreement." In order to ensure that the Tories were not misunderstanding or hedging on that question, the Canadian Association of University Teachers asked a second question to elucidate on the answer to the first question. They asked if the Conservative Party supported the continuation of the Established Programs Financing Act in its present form with regard to post-secondary education and, if not, what they believed should replace the EPF transfers to the provinces for postsecondary education.
The Tories replied that they fully supported the original 1977 funding formula and the legislation providing for that. Prior to the last election, nothing could have been more clear than that promise made by the Conservatives. Those were their words, not in one answer but in two.
We know that the Prime Minister did not keep his promise. He broke it. The proof of that is found in Bill C-96. He did not keep his promise since this Bill changes the 1977 funding formula. It cuts the formula back from what was approximately 7.4 per cent to a figure of 5 per cent. Worse than breaking a promise, the Government has broken its agreement with the provinces. Before the end of the fiscal year, March 31, 1987, the Government has cut back in terms of its agreement. This move is not only a breach of promise but it breaks an agreement which was in existence between the Government of Canada and the provinces.
Obviously, the Tories do not care one whit about the promises they made during the election campaign. As my colleague from Laval-des-Rapides pointed out, the breaking of this agreement with the provinces leaves them in a situation of finding themselves with an unfulfilled promise. A breach of promise and a breach of agreement are totally unacceptable to the morality of this country. Beyond any question, this is inexcusable.
In fact the Tories admit that they have changed the formula. This is a devastating and savage attack on the medical care programs of the provinces. I wish to point out that even when the Liberal Government was carrying out a special short range attack on inflation in its famous and successful 6-and 5-program it never touched the medical side of the transfer payments. Indeed, at that time the Tories vigorously criticized the Liberals for imposing a cap of 6 per cent for the first year and 5 per cent for the next on the post-secondary education section of the transfer payments. As Don Savage, the Executive Director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, pointed out, the Liberal Government caps were temporary. They were in place for about two years. The Conservative cap of 5 per cent is permanent. This is what Mr. Savage had to say about the matter:

May 5, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
In the 1984 election the Conservatives promised to maintain the 1977 arrangements. Now they are subverting them.
The Government is subverting them in this Bill. That is the tragedy of it.
How the Tories complained about the way the Liberals cut back to 6 per cent and 5 per cent in order to fight inflation for two years with regard to a section of these transfer payments! Not only did they swear that if they were elected they would go back to the old formula but they said that they would increase support for post-secondary education and for research. The following are the words of the Conservative Member of Parliament for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) who pleaded the case eloquently in 1982. He said:
We must have the development of intellectual capacity in the country. The only place in which that can happen is in the post-secondary educational stream. We require universities, technical colleges and community colleges. If we do not train our people, they will be incapable of competing in a highly technical world, will have to use the technologies of others, will truly be hewers of wood and drawers of water, and will have to live to the standards that exist in South Korea and Taiwan. It is a competitive world. If we do not keep up and keep ahead, our standard of living will drop to those of other countries.
We must keep our universities and colleges staffed, growing, capable of doing research and development and training people. That is a priority.
Those are the words of a Conservative Member of Parliament spoken at a time when the Liberal Government was in power. He was criticizing that Liberal Government for a temporary cut of transfer payments to 6-and 5-in order to fight inflation. His Government has now placed a permanent cap of 5 per cent on the matter. The Hon. Member for Mississauga South knows that this move is disastrous. However, we do not hear him complaining now about Bill C-96 to say that, in fact, his own Party has reneged on the priority of which he spoke.
The following are the words of the present Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) as she said them prior to the Tories being elected. She said:
What really seems clear to me from the Minister's speech this morning is that the Government, divorced as it is from the real world, does not seem to be aware of the growing crisis in Canadian post-secondary institutions.
After one more quotation I will stop torturing my Conservative colleagues across the way. The following are the words of the Hon. Member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Clark) who said:
We need more consultation with the provinces. We need the development of a national education strategy. Above all, we must understand that this is not the time to reduce in any way the vital resources which the federal Government has been transferring to the provinces.
That is what was said then by those members of the Government who were criticizing the cuts. Until that time the actual escalators which the Liberals brought into effect for the years 1970 on were 11 per cent, 10 per cent, 10 per cent, 11 per cent and 12 per cent. We then brought in the 6-and 5-program. Of course, this certainly indicates that the previous Government was providing escalators which were at least much larger and more significant. Nonetheless, the Tories considered that that record was not good enough.
Where are these Tory MPs now when their Government, their Party, and their Prime Minister have broken faith with the provincial Governments and, above all, with our youth, the future of us all? Why do Conservative Members of Parliament not speak up now as they did before the last election and try to do something to save our educational system?
I have said that the Tories stand condemned for three reasons. The first is for their breach of promise, upon which I have elaborated. The second is that they make the strong stronger but, tragically, in doing so they make the weak weaker. The Government has a knack, not only in its Budgets but in its programs, for making the rich richer and the poor poorer. As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Grand Falls- White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey), said so eloquently on April 25:
In my own Province of Newfoundland there will be a reduction of $7 million in 1986-87. Newfoundland will get $7 million less than it had expected. It will have to find that money within its own economy. Over a five-year period the province will receive $48 million less than it expected. That is in the province which has the highest unemployment rate in the country and an economy which is very, very vulnerable, and which has already experienced cut-backs in government programs. It has seen the lay-off of public servants. It has seen the world oil price plummet, which has put in jeopardy the one great hope which the province had, that is, the development of Hibernia. Newfoundland and other provinces like it will be forced to look to their already weakened economies to make up the disparity in funding.
In his attempt to come to grips with inflation at the federal level and to lower the federal deficit, the Minister is passing the problem on to the provincial economies. I am not alone in taking this position. It has been echoed by the Premier of Newfoundland.
This is the concern which we have. There is no doubt whatsoever that it will be students and the economically poorer provinces who will suffer the first and the most as a result of this cut and others imposed by the Government. I say this, whether or not we are referring to student loans, bursaries, tuition fees, or the quality of facilities in education. Because of this regressive Tory policy the poor will get poorer and the rich will get richer. There will be poorer education and fewer opportunities for the poor.
In November, 1985, Premier after Premier protested the action of the Government and said that the reduction in the growth of federal funds for health and education was made without consultation. Take, for example, some of the concerns expressed by Tory leaders in the provinces. Terence Donahoe, Nova Scotia's Minister of Human Resources Development and Training, said the following as quoted by The Globe and Mail of January 28, 1986:
-if Ottawa goes ahead with a reduction in grants, "it simply will emasculate the post-secondary education system. It is going to be chaos and chaotic. Regardless of whose numbers you are going to use, the system is simply going to fall apart.
How can the Tory members of the Government here in Ottawa say that it is not true that this will have devastating effects on the provinces or that the provinces understood and agreed with this? How can they possibly put that notion forward when we heard from Newfoundland Tory Premier Brian Peckford, as reported in the same article, the following:
May 5, 1986

We will have to limit students going to our universities and everybody won't have a free chance to go to university.
Saskatchewan Tory Premier, Grant Devine, said:
Before you ask teachers and nurses (to bear the cuts), you got to carve up a bit.
The Tory Premier of New Brunswick, Richard Hatfield,
said:
I don't have a choice. I can gouge the economy or I can gouge social programs.
Howard Pawley of Manitoba also protested, as did the Premier of Ontario.
Practically every Premier protested this action of the federal Government. Tory Members are acting as if this was only part of the course of nature. It is not. As Patrick Kenniff of Concordia is quoted as saying, "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance".
Canadians will not fall for this kind of explanation or for this kind of Government. That is one of the reasons for Tories being turfed out in province after province. Tories are burying our talents in the ground rather than risking them by investing in the health and education of our people.
The Bill that cuts back on what the provinces were promised for post-secondary education and health care is mean. It hurts the weak and the young people. It does all of those things that Tory MPs from Kingston and the Islands, Mississauga South and Brandon-Souris said, while in opposition, should not happen. Those exact things are happening under the Tory Government.
This measure will not lower the deficit as the Premier of Ontario, David Peterson, so rightly said to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). He said:
You are only transferring the national problem to us.
Yes, the Prime Minister is not eliminating the deficit, he is just passing the buck. He is passing it on to the provinces and the provinces often have to pass it on to the young people. The young people have to pay for the deficit with their careers and their futures. The Government has passed the buck to them.
The Government was not listening to Ed Anderson or Don Savage of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, or to the Association of University Colleges of Canada, or to John Casola of the Canadian Federation of Students. Despite the recommendations of the famous Johnson report and the findings of the Bovey Commission in Ontario, the Royal Commission in Nova Scotia, the Wright report and the Macdonald Royal Commission report, the Government is not listening and is not offering leadership. We need leadership in this area.
The Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) has been going across the country speaking and listening to university students, professors, and administrators. He is profoundly concerned about post-secondary education. As the Leader of the Official Opposition, he has been alerting the country to the need for a national approach to post-secondary education. He is insisting that we need a way to get the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
provinces and the federal Government to co-operate and to make sure that the money the federal Government transfers to education in the provinces is spent on education, unlike what happens in the Province of B.C. He wants to make sure that federal incentives to the provinces be arranged for research and development and that the promised targets for research and development are reached. He wants to see that attention is given to strengthen centres of excellence, that business and school co-operation is encouraged, and that we increase our effectiveness in spending. That is the program of the Leader of the Official Opposition. That is what this Government is not doing for us. It is not offering leadership. It is simply cutting back on its promises and even on its agreements.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) on his excellent speech. In a province like Ontario, for example, this change in the transfer payment will mean the loss of close to $3 billion by the end of 1991-92. Although the Province of Ontario is probably one of the richest provinces in Canada, does the Hon. Member think that the Ontario Government can accept this cut and manage to keep the same level of services, or will the Department of Education, for example, have to cut back on university services or increase tuition fees? Perhaps the Hon. Member could comment on that.


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, yes, the price the Province of Ontario alone will have to pay in the period indicated in loss of promised revenues for post-secondary education certainly will be, as pointed out by the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau), $3 billion. Obviously this will mean that there will be a lessening of the quality of education and a deterioration in the capital assets of the universities.
It is a shocking fact that the library of Queen's University is now rated 85th among those of North American universities. This obviously means that that university is not finding the funds necessary for capital expenditures. This is just one example of what is happening.
We think of Queen's University as being one of the great universities in this country. It is now suffering these kinds of set-backs. Imagine what the other, newer universities in the province must now face in terms of required capital expenditures and operating expenses.
Obviously, in answer to my colleague's question, the situation that exists in the Province of Ontario is grave. Already the Premier has given an additional $50 million to the universities. That Government is looking at this problem and is trying to find a solution.
The other solution suggested by my colleague was to increase tuition fees. That was something that the Bovey Commission of Ontario began to think might be necessary because of the cut-backs in promised support. Obviously this means less access to universities for the poorer students. Why do I say that? Are there not student loans? There may be student loans, but parents will probably not allow their children to run up debts that are so high if the price of tuition

May 5, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
goes out of sight. This is a very serious cut-back to the future of our young people, and the students from less affluent homes will continue to bear the brunt. The children of the elite will get to university but the children of those who are in the working and middle classes will have to suffer. They will not get the education and they will then become the hewers of wood and drawers of water, thanks to the Tories.


Mr. McCurdy:: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech made by the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille). Of course we agreed with him when he called for a revolt in the Tory ranks in protest against the legislation that is before us today. I am also appreciative of the revelation that the Leader of the Liberal Party is now engaged in the kind of consultation process with universities in which we have been engaged for some 18 months now.
I listened with particular interest to the Hon. Member when he referred to the 6-and 5-cuts which were perpetrated by the Liberal Government. Those cuts clearly hurt the postsecondary educational system in Canada and made their own contribution to cutting back accessibility. The Hon. Member indicated that they were not permanent changes as were the changes suggested in the legislation before us. I was quite reassured to hear that. I just want to know when the money was put back.


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend will find that it immediately and automatically reverted back because the legislation was only for the periods of 6-and 5-. Inevitably there was some loss over that period, but the formula reverted back automatically to the original formula which remained in place. If the Hon. Member examines the legislation more closely, he will find that it automatically reverted. In fact for one year the Tories brought in about a 7.4 per cent formula which followed the existing formula automatically.
What I am criticizing is that for the next year, the year leading up to March 31, 1987, they have cooked up a new formula which breaks the existing agreement that does not expire until March 31, 1987. They are not only breaking their election promise to keep the 1977 funding formula, they are also breaking into the middle of an agreement period which does not expire until March 31, 1987. It is disgusting for any Government to break faith in terms of an agreement which exists between the Government of Canada and the provinces.
1 should like to refer to the activities of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. Ever since he was elected to the House he has been active and has shown a total involvement in the whole area of youth and post-secondary education. Hardly a month has gone by that he has not visited a large number of universities and colleges to listen, to speak with, and to assess the problems in that area of our future.
I thank the Hon. Member for his question and the opportunity to make that clarification.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Just to ensure that the facts are clear, I proffer a further question to my hon. colleague. Were the six and five cuts made with the unanimous consent and enthusiasm of the provinces? Was the $350 million which was involved ever returned to the universities? Is the loss in those two years appreciably less than the two-year loss which the postsecondary educational system will experience as a result of the Bill before us? Finally, was there an organized effort on the part of the Official Opposition in the form of a task force, such as the one established by the New Democratic Party, to speak with young people about the problems of post-secondary education?


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the activities of the New Democratic Party. I am not aware in detail of what it has been involved in, in terms of its tours, trips, and research. I hope the NDP will share it with the House by reporting on the matter.
I should like to deal with the more important question the Hon. Member asked. I pointed out that obviously the funds lost during the 6-and 5-, during the period of time in which we dealt with the inflation emergency, were lost for good. Since our dear friends in the NDP never govern and never have to be responsible, they enjoy the opportunity to criticize any efforts which are made to deal with economic problems, whether they are made during a Liberal or a Conservative regime. When the subject of inflation arose, I do not remember them taking any kind of responsible action in that respect or making any supporting efforts to find a program to bring down inflation. However, I have to point out that the 6-and 5-measures were successful. They were temporary, they were taken off, and we returned to the present system.
As a final comment, I am not satisfied that enough was done in the past, even though the Liberal Government made an important enough contribution to post-secondary education and showed that the federal Government had an important role to play. We do not need to do less, as was suggested by the Tories. I suggest that we need to do more. The Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition has shown leadership in this question, not only by throwing money at post-secondary education but by working out ways whereby we can work with the provinces to ensure that the money given to them reaches the targets, to ensure that the provinces themselves can participate, and to ensure that there is an over-all approach to the important areas of financing universities and colleges, of financing economically important research which helps business, and of pure science and the social sciences, all of which are important to the future of the country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must remind Hon. Members that from this point onward speeches will be limited to 10 minutes.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say that I am pleased to be speaking on Bill C-96 because it is a Bill which we do not want to see before the House. It attacks two absolutely essential programs in terms of
May 5, 1986

health care and post-secondary education. Also it shows a betrayal of promises made by Conservative Party Members when they were in opposition and repeated at length during the 1984 election campaign. They indicated that they would respect and indeed return to the EPF formula of 1977.
We see a chipping away of our social programs in the case of the old age pension, from which they backed off, the family allowance, and the child tax credit. It is a 3 per cent attack. They do not have the nerve to attack 100 per cent of the program. They want to reduce it by 3 per cent per year. Here we have a reduction in the order of 2 per cent per year. Perhaps it does not seem all that serious, but people must realize that it is a cumulative 2 per cent and that it is in vitally important areas. With a rising elderly population, we can expect in any event that health care costs will rise. In the area of post-secondary education, the Government says that we need a well-trained labour force and well-educated people in order to stimulate the economy, to develop research, to develop technology, and to compete in the modern world. The Tories are going in the wrong direction.
The problem arises out of the projections which have been made for growth in expenditures under the Established Programs Financing Act, 1977. The agreement which was negotiated with the provinces and entrenched in legislation was that there would be increases in the federal contribution in line with the Gross National Product and population growth. The projected increase was 7 per cent. With the proposal before us in Bill C-96, the object is to cut 2 per cent, leaving 5 per cent. Under the old formula the provinces could have expected $97.7 billion between 1986-87 and 1990-91. Under the new formula, if Bill C-96 passes, they will receive $92.1 billion, or $5 billion less than they were led to believe they would receive. For Ontario that is roughly $2 billion less than it expected.
Let us look at the breakdown between health care and education. Roughly 68 per cent is for health and 32 per cent is for post-secondary education. Both will be hit very badly. Let us remember that when the Liberals hit these two programs with their 6-and 5-measure, the Conservatives in opposition said that it was wrong and that the programs should not be attacked. Now we have the Nielsen report of the Conservative study team. It recommends against Established Programs Financing because:
It restricts flexibility of provinces in responding to pressures within their health systems.
This is a euphemism. Yes, it indeed restricts what provinces can do in order that Canadians will get some protection against extra billing and privatization. We need that kind of protection.
The Conservatives in their campaign handbook said:
We would return to the 1977 funding formula.
During the campaign itself the Tories said:
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
We are committed to sustaining the federal financial commitment according to the formula set out in the 1977 agreement-we believe that financing of postsecondary education is an important priority for both levels of government.
We see Tory Governments provincially cutting postsecondary education, and we see it being done federally.
Before the Established Programs Financing Act of 1977, programs were cost shared on a 50/50 basis. Since then the federal share has dropped. In the first year of operation, 197778, the federal share went down to 48.7 per cent. By 1982-83 it was 42.6 per cent, in 1986-87, 41.0 per cent, and the projection for 1990-91 is 36.0 per cent. Yet throughout this time we see health care costs rising simply because of demographic changes. Elderly people require more health care. This legislation does not take their needs into account. Health care technology is changing. If we are going to give the best quality care to people, there will be increasing costs.
The Canadian Medical Association says this legislation will create a two-tier health care system as between rich and poor provinces, and:
The dream of Canadians having access to reasonably comparable health services, no matter where they live or travel, appears to have been abandoned by the Government of Canada.
Health care is already underfunded. Hospitals operating on a financial deficit have become the norm. Hospital beds are not available, emergency departments are overcrowded with patients stored in the corridors and many patients wait for months for admission to hospital as waiting lists grow longer.
In the poorer provinces there is already a crisis situation. This Bill will make things worse.
Manitoba has been leading the fight among the provinces to maintain services as they are. All provinces are critical of cuts of this nature. The Manitoba Government has made it very clear that it thinks that health care and post-secondary costs should be brought into line with economic growth, but it cannot be done overnight. It cannot be done by one level of Government acting arbitrarily and unilaterally. There has to be orderly progress.
In the case of post-secondary education in many provinces, we see universities and colleges attacked by their own provincial Governments. Universities and colleges are being attacked both ways by cuts federally and provincially. Students are suffering as a result. Tuition costs have gone up. Universities are much less accessible than they were before. There are limitations on enrolment. It is not just the largest and most prestigious universities that are limiting enrolment. Whole programs are being cut.
I notice in Toronto that the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education is to be closed. The situation in B.C. is much more dramatic with really serious cut-backs throughout universities and colleges there.
Let me quote from a report prepared for the Secretary of State of Canada (Mr. Bouchard) on the federal financing of post-secondary education, by A. W. Johnson. A number of absolutely key points are made about the changes that we have seen in recent years. Let me quote:

May 5, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
The proportion of the GNP made available by government to Canada's universities and colleges for their core operations has been declining since 197778, the year the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act was passed-from 1.35 per cent in that year to 1.24 per cent in 1984-85.
The proportion has probably gone down since then but these are the latest data available. The report goes on:
Between 1977-78 and 1984-85, enrolment in universities increased by 27 per cent, and that in colleges by 36 per cent.
These are substantial increases. It continues:
During the same period government support of core operations, expressed in real terms, increased by 2.5 per cent.
That is shameful and it means that real programs have had to be cut, classroom sizes go up, purchases of equipment and library supplies and all of that have suffered as a result of expenditures not keeping pace with increasing enrolment. The report goes on:
University tuition fees, when expressed in real dollars, have been rising in every province since 1981-82-except in Quebec.
Enrolment limitations-services which are vital to research and higher education, library services, research equipment, computer services-are falling behind, in many cases seriously so.
I see that my time is up, Mr. Speaker. Let me close by saying this is shocking legislation. It attacks all people by attacking the health care system, elderly people in particular. It is unwise legislation, it is hitting young people who want post-secondary education, and the Government has the gall to say that young people and a trained labour force are needed in order to stimulate the economy and to make Canada competitive in the world. But we will not have that so long as universities and colleges do not get the funding they need. That is the situation as it is right now. We have a Conservative Government going in the wrong direction, absolutely contrary to the promises made in the election campaign, absolutely contrary to everything it said in opposition.
We are going to oppose this Bill. We have taken the view that the Bill should be sent back for study for another six months in order to give a chance for the federal Government and the provinces to work out better terms, ones that will respect the needs of Canadians. We should not proceed with Bill C-96 as it is now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On debate I will recognize next the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Minaker).
Is it the pleasure of the House that I call it one o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock today.
At 12.58 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, it is not what you know but who you know. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) proved that last Friday night when he appointed his close friend and backroom schemer, Michel Cogger, to the Senate to represent the Province of Quebec. Whatever happened to the sanctimonious platitudes of the summer of 1984 which were repeated in the House of Commons in September of 1985? The Prime Minister was to "reform this instrument of our national life".
So proud was the Prime Minister of his friend, Cogger, that he appointed him at 6 p.m. on Friday after the lights had dimmed in the Press Gallery. Perhaps the statement of the Conservative Leader on May 24, 1983, was the most accurate. He said: "There will be jobs for Liberals and NDPs, too, after I have been in power for 15 years and I can't find a single living, breathing Tory left to appoint".



FORESTRY


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, this week is National Forestry Week in Canada. The Conservative Government has committed the sum of $4 million to be spent over the next two years on advertising designed to create public awareness of the importance of our national forests. Canada needs more than public relations and election promises if our forests are to continue providing jobs and resources for our future.
Last June the Committee on Fisheries and Forestry passed a motion as follows: "This committee urges the Government of Canada, in the strongest terms, to establish a separate federal Ministry of Forestry and a Standing Committee on Forestry". My amendment, which also received all-Party support, added: "-and a national forest and forest industries Act". Action on this motion would constitute practical and far-reaching recognition on the theme: "Your forests, your future".



THE LATE ALAN BORDEN

Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Alan Borden who lost a courageous battle last Wednesday, April 30, 1986. Alan was the immediate past-president of B'nai Brith Canada. In 1978 he was instrumental
May 5, 1986

in arranging to have a Jerusalem pavillion in the Metropolitan Toronto International Caravan. He also led with excellence the fundraising activities of the B'nai Brith Foundation. His vision was also evident in Israel where, thanks to his initiative, a Mother and Child Health Care Centre was established in Tel Aviv for disadvantaged people.
Alan will be remembered by his many colleagues at B'nai Brith across Canada and internationally. Alan Borden will be missed most by his wife Betsy and their two daughters, Samantha and Lindsay, his parents, Harvey and Ruth Borden, and many other close relatives. May his family be comforted among the mourners of Zion.



RESPECT FOR LIFE WEEK


Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of Members that this week has been designated Respect for Life Week in Canada. The goal of this week is to heighten public awareness of the work of the pro-life movement in Canada. The pro-life movement embodies the concerns of millions of Canadians who view the right to life of the unborn as a fundamental human right.
Several years ago over one million Canadians signed a petition to this Parliament to afford legal protection for the unborn. Every year in Canada over 65,000 pregnancies end in abortion. This needless waste of life must be addressed by all of us as concerned Canadians working to reform attitudes and to change laws. During this Respect for Life Week may we, not only parliamentarians but all Canadians, rededicate ourselves to the respect for every human life.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I have questioned the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Andre) in committee, and last Thursday and Friday I questioned both the Associate Minister and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen) on when the Government will release its long promised White Paper on defence policy. This is the paper which was to fulfil Tory promises and give the Armed Forces a glorious tomorrow. Tomorrow has come and gone, but there is still no policy paper. Straight forward questions have been met with smart aleck replies. Diversionary tactics are used to confuse the issue and the Ministers look increasingly silly as it becomes more apparent each day that the Emperor has no clothes. The
Government wrapped itself in promises of 6 per cent real growth in the defence budget, but the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) tore this off and exposed two ashen-faced Ministers protected only by the wilting promises of a Government which cannot be trusted. The Tory defence cupboard is bare. It is apparent, Mr. Speaker, that despite their selfrighteous protestations the Ministers are bare as well.

[Translation)



AGRICULTURE


Gabriel Fontaine: Today, Mr. Speaker, I want to bear witness in the House to the Quebec dairy producers' very high level of satisfaction toward our farm policy. They are aware of the dairy policy which has now been established for the next five years. Hon. Members will remember that the former Liberal administration used to hold our farm producers hostage by making public every 12 months a new dairy policy or maintaining the status quo.
Moreover, since May 1, 1986, these same dairy producers are entitled to a 5.5 cents a litre exemption on the fuel they use for agricultural purposes.
Our Party has faith in the future of agriculture. Since September 1984, it has worked together with small and medium-sized farms, and our Government will continue to get involved in the Quebec agricultural industry, as all Quebecers will appreciate when the Province of Quebec has examined and accepted the Canada-Quebec farm subsidiary agreement.



MULTICULTURALISM


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Jelinek) has challenged the multicultural policy developed over the past 15 years. He appears to believe that grants supporting cultural retention have led to the social, economic and political isolation of minorities to the detriment of Canada. It is not the support of programs within minority communities which inhibits their participation in Canada, but rather the feeble efforts of Government to encourage that participation.
Even while high rates of unemployment hurt minorities most while exacerbating the scapegoating of the same minorities, the Government adopts employment policies which can but make matters worse, while itself failing to provide leadership

May 5, 1986
in the hiring of minorities in the Public Service. Indeed, cuts in the Public Service promise little hope for future progress. Cynicism abounds in the form of employment equity instead of mandatory affirmative action, promises, not kept, of greatly increased minority appointments, and immigration policies which sacrifice families to money. This Government still perceives one third of our people as on the outside looking in.



PENSIONS


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, as with the weather, there is much talk about pension reform in the private sector, but with little action. In the context of current legislation, the time is now for that sector to increase substantially the numbers covered. Provision must be made for a more mobile workforce, giving earlier vesting rights and increased portability. Pension fund assets now exceed $125 billion. The time has come when such funds may not be subject to unilateral use or abuse, or even to the risk of third party claims. So long as those funds are subject to corporate benefit and tax breaks, it is the individual employee who should be protected. Even an allocation of one-third of the amount of those funds would greatly assist those early retirees who live on fixed pensions, a pre-CPP plan, and pre-inflation dollars.

[ Translation]



MONTREAL BOTANICAL GARDEN


Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval):: 

AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, again New Brunswick, this time the Moncton-Riverview area, is being threatened by the prospect of unemployment as a result of the Government's decisions. After the CN workshops in Moncton, the same situation may arise at the air traffic control centre in Moncton-Riverview.
It seems the Government intends to close down this control centre, and if that is the case, 200 workers will lose their jobs, and Moncton and area will lose $6.5 million in income.
It seems no consultations have been held, which has made workers very concerned. I too am very concerned, Mr. Speaker, about Moncton and New Brunswick. What is going on with this Government? Has it decided to erase our region from the map? Is it going to apply the Schefferville solution to New Brunswick? Ever since this party came to power, workers in New Brunswick have been made to feel insecure as a result of the threat of unemployment. It is an insult to the people of New Brunswick!



DISASTERS


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, the Chernobyl incident was handled by Moscow in the most high-handed and irresponsible manner and reflects, once again, its obsession with losing face internationally. It is very difficult to believe that the second most powerful country in the world would apply its weapon of disinformation at a time when it has created such a horrible threat to its neighbours. It had both a moral and legal responsibility to make public this accident. Yet, it was not until Sweden and Finland discovered abnormally high radiation readings that the matter received the attention it required.
This is in sharp contrast to the Three Mile Island incident. In that case when a nuclear power plant reactor sprung a leak, detailed information was made available immediately, both to the public and to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Secretary General Gorbachev's promise of greater-
May 5, 1986


Mr. Speaker:: Sixty seconds. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy).



THE MINISTER OF REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of my hon. colleagues to how quickly the events of this House find their counterpart in the popular culture of our country. I refer specifically to the business arrangement between the Hon. Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) and his wife, which the Canadian public has heard so much about in the last week.
In the Byward Market in Ottawa this weekend I happened to enter the Budapest Delicatessen, which was featuring as its special, the Sink Stevens sandwich.
Allow me to share the ingredients with you. First you take a layer of turkey, you add a layer of hot air and you finish it off with a layer of baloney. Lay it away interest free and there you have the Sink Stevens special. At $1.99 it is a real steal.



EXPO 86 EXCITEMENT OF EXHIBITS AND PAVILIONS

Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Awesome-it's the only word to describe Expo 86 in Vancouver, British Columbia. It is electric, colourful, fast-moving and fun. From the Scream Machine to the newest space technology; from African artifacts to Indonesian frog dancers; from opera to rock, it is all there.
The Canadian pavilion is a must where outstanding films and exhibits show how transportation and communications have shaped our history, our culture and will provide exciting opportunities for our future.
On behalf of all Canadians our thanks to those who had the dream, who created the magic, and who made it happen, and especially to Mr. Expo, Jimmy Pattison, B.C.'s newest national treasure. Friends, visitors, countrymen, don't miss it. From now until October 13 you will be glad you left home to be there.
_____________________________________12937



THE YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate and thank the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Beatty) for introducing in the House last week a Bill to amend the Young Offenders Act to better protect the public.
During the past two years the Young Offenders Act has been the subject of much public criticism. Now, after developing a consensus of support among police, social service agencies, the legal profession, provincial Governments and citizens, the Solicitor General has introduced amendments allowing consecutive sentences greater than three years where a young person commits a subsequent offence while subject to an earlier sentence; ensuring records are kept in cases of acquittals by reason of insanity; allowing names to be published in some cases, and making it illegal to counsel children under 12 to commit crimes.
These are major improvements in the Young Offenders Act. I urge the House to pass them quickly and to ensure that they become law before the summer recess.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, last week we were treated to a number of comments by Conservative Ministers and Members who were bragging that a survey of public servants released by the CBC was an endorsement of the present Government's policies. A Conservative Member even congratulated public servants on their objective analysis of this Government's performance and leadership. The Hon. Member must not have a very high opinion of our federal public servants if he thinks they are quite happy to be told they are going to lose their jobs.
Mr. Speaker, it is easy to analyze a survey the way they did it, but it is not that easy to tell the truth, and I think it would have been more accurate to say that the sample taken by the CBC did not at all reflect the social and economic situation in this area; that the cutbacks in staff announced by this Conservative Government did not become effective until April of this year; and that the really serious, dramatic and disastrous impact that the loss of these jobs will have on the local economy will not be felt until next year-


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. The 60 seconds are up.

May 5, 1986
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Once again, we have a Minister involved in a secret and very questionable deal. Only this time, by allowing the Korean auto company to break a commitment, it cost a minimum of 10,000 jobs to the Canadian economy last year. Under what authority did he waive the agreement with a Hyundai plant that would have required Hyundai to purchase over $300 million worth of Canadian goods? Was this done with the knowledge of the Prime Minister, was it done with the knowledge of the Cabinet, or was it his own private negotiation for his own private purposes?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, concerning the Hyundai negotiations, I think it is wise that we bear in mind that Hyundai is the first automotive company to go into the Province of Quebec in over 20 years and I am proud of it. We feel, in the negotiations leading up to Hyundai's decision to go into the Province of Quebec, that we negotiated an undertaking with the Hyundai motor car company that is more satisfactory and much more job creative than the previous Government had in place.


COMPANY POSITION ON AGREEMENT-AMOUNT OF GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister tell us if Hyundai demanded during those negotiations that it be allowed to break the agreement to purchase over $300 million worth of Canadian goods and, if so, why did the Government give such other generous financial assistance amounting to another $100 million? Why was that broken agreement not made public at the time? Why did you keep it secret? What were you trying to hide?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member asks what we are trying to hide. Absolutely nothing, because it is a good deal. It will result in 1,200 direct jobs alone as far as Bromont, Quebec is concerned, as well as another 1,200 indirect jobs. It is one of the finest job creation programs that that area of Quebec has in hand at the present time.


Lloyd Axworthy: I would only say to the Minister that it is hard to say it is a good deal when you lost 10,000 jobs last year because you allowed that company to break the agreement.


REQUEST FOR MINISTER'S RESIGNATION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, now that this particular deal has been made public, along with all the other deals that have been made public, is it not time for the Minister to live up to his responsibility for accountability and step down until we can investigate what is going on?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, let me assure the House and all Hon. Members that I do not feel that making good deals, especially for the Province of Quebec, is any reason why this or any other Minister should step down.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO VICE-PRESIDENT OF HYUNDAI
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. How can the Minister say that he has made a good deal for Canada when Mr. Gibbons, Vice-President of Hyundai, confirmed publicly that the Minister gave up a legally binding undertaking with respect to the purchase of $300 million worth of Canadian goods in return for nothing more than a gentleman's agreement? How can he say that that is better than something which is legally binding? It is nothing more than a sweetheart deal, rather than jobs for Canadians.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, again, the Hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition has not been doing his homework. It is no gentleman's agreement. The fact is that the Hyundai motor car company has agreed to spend $300 million to create a new automotive plant facility in the Province of Quebec. As I indicated before, that is something which will directly and indirectly result in the creation of 2,400 jobs in that area.
I must also remind the Hon. Member that it was a jointly shared deal between the Province of Quebec and Canada. If he is criticizing this Government, then he must also criticize the Government of Quebec which felt it was a good deal.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF DOCUMENTS
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is contradicting the Vice-President of Hyundai, Mr. Gibbons, who said he gave nothing more than a gentleman's agreement. If that is the case, will the Minister undertake right now to table today in the House each and every document pertaining to this deal so that the public can make its own judgment?

Will you do that, because the agreement you negotiated is a gentleman's agreement, not an agreement to create jobs


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member would get away
May 5, 1986

from using as his chief source of research a 25-cent copy of The Toronto Star, I think his questioning would be a little better.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The fact is that it is a signed agreement. As the Hon. Member must know we announced publicly the signed agreement with Hyundai at the time it was signed. We gave the high points as far as that agreement is concerned.


Lloyd Axworthy: But you didn't talk about breaking this agreement.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: It is an agreement which I think will be demonstrated to be one of the finest agreements ever signed by the Province of Quebec and by Canada in the interests of encouraging more automotive manufacturing in the Province of Quebec.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


APPROVAL OF GOVERNMENT DECISION
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is a supplementary question for the same Minister. The Minister knows that if they had lived up to their original agreement instead of getting the jobs that are now coming there would have been an additional 10,000 to 15,000 jobs in Canada. The Government has let them out of that. Only the present Minister could call that a good deal.
Will the Minister confirm that the decision to free them from this commitment was made last November? Will he tell us if he did it on his own authority-and he did not deal with this question-or did he take it to Cabinet and was it approved by the full Cabinet?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure the Hon. Member that when he starts bandying around so-called alternative job-creation figures the thing which we found most deficient with the previous Government's arrangement of simply saying: "In dollar terms, if you import so much we want you to export so much"-


Mr. Tobin:: Did you have cabinet authority? Yes or no.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -there was no job-creation relationship between those figures. We believe it is much more important to weigh the number of jobs that are being created. That is what we have done in this project.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Answer the question.


SOURCING OF PARTS BY HYUNDAI
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the House will know that the Minister went through the whole of last week not answering one question. He has not answered a single, serious-
Oral Questions


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order. Shape up there.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Edward Broadbent: I wish to ask-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Just a question.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, considering that the agreement which the Minister unilaterally broke on his own would have required that company to spend some $300 million in Canada, which even the present Government should be able to figure out would have created a few jobs, and since it has given up that commitment, and also considering that the same company, Hyundai, which does not sell a single car in Japan- not a single car-spends hundreds of millions of dollars in Japan-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Edward Broadbent: Why did the Government not get an explicit commitment from Hyundai to purchase some $300 million in parts in Canada?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, if I may go back to the answers I was giving initially, the fact is that it was a negotiation which we felt resulted in an automotive plant being built in the Province of Quebec. That will not only be job-creative, as I have indicated, it will also result in substantial sourcing as the company works to a full auto pact status. In truth, the full agreement shows very clearly that this will be a much more job-creative approach than one under the old agreement. We have all the benefits of the old agreement but more assurance that we are going to get jobs out of this agreement. That is what this Government believes in.


FUTURE OF SAINTE-THERESE AUTOMOBILE PLANT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, considering that General Motors, Chrysler and Ford met very specific auto pact requirements to invest in Canada, and considering that one of those companies, General Motors, is now considering investing in the Province of Quebec but has objected seriously to the giveaway of the Government to Hyundai, is the Government going to accept responsibility for the possible destruction of 4,000 existing jobs in Sainte-Therese because it is trying to be a quick-buck artist by luring Hyundai here in the short run?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the-


John Edward Broadbent: Have you talked to GM recently?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The Leader of the NDP has, I think, made an unfortunate reflection on a very worth-while automotive development in the Province of Quebec. He asked me if I have spoken to GM recently. Sure, I have spoken to George

May 5, 1986
Oral Questions
Peepples of GM recently and, contrary to what the Hon. Member is saying, Mr. Peebles is now very encouraged by the developments at Sainte-Therese and hopes that there will be a favourable announcement in due course. I wish the Hon. Member for Oshawa would show a little positive thinking concerning that plant rather than his negative thinking.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST INQUIRY
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. He knows that at the time he made the sweetheart deal with Hyundai, his personal company had loans outstanding with the Hanil Bank. He also knows that Hyundai is a major shareholder of the Hanil Bank. Would the Minister not agree that it constitutes a blatant conflict of interest when his personal business interests conflict with his public duty?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the truth is that regarding the preamble the Hon. Member put in place, I did not know what he alleges I knew.


LOANS WITH HANIL BANK
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, that is pretty hard to believe. He is asking Canadians to believe-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John V. Nunziata: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A supplementary question, please.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, that stretches-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


John V. Nunziata: I would like to ask the Minister if he is prepared to rise and provide full particulars of the loans that remain outstanding with the Hanil Bank in order to ensure that the public interest was maintained and that his personal interests were not furthered by the sweetheart deal made with Hyundai.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows that questions to Ministers are about their ministerial responsibilities, not their personal affairs.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ms. Copps:: He set up a sweetheart deal!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The first question was in order, the second was not.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John V. Nunziata: I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Deputy Prime Minister then.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You can question John Turner but you can't question the Speaker.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Slime!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Member will understand-


John V. Nunziata: I would like to question the Deputy Prime Minister then.


Mr. Speaker:: -that the Chair has to make those distinctions. Order, please.


HYUNDAI CONDITIONS INQUIRY
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the same Minister. Would the Minister tell the House whether, during the negotiations, Hyundai told the Government of Canada that it would not build the plant in Quebec unless the $300 million purchase agreement was rescinded?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I can only relate to the Hon. Member what is in my own knowledge. As far as the Department is concerned, I would have to check, but as far as my knowledge is concerned, there was never such an ultimatum given.


REASON FOR GOVERNMENT DECISION
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question must be obvious even to the Minister. If there was no such ultimatum, why then did the Government of Canada relinquish the $300 million purchase agreement since Hyundai was going to locate the plant in Quebec in any event?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I think those in the House who have negotiated these types of deals will be well aware that they take a lengthy time. Much is negotiated; much is on the table. Our feeling was that over all we obtained a much better deal than the previous Government had obtained. As a term of that deal, we not only got the assurance in respect of the investment of $300 million in the plant in Quebec, but the assurance that there would be sourcing very similar to the sourcing which was contemplated under the earlier agreement, and a more concrete, binding agreement to ensure jobs for Canadians. That is what I hope the NDP will be supportive of.


MINISTER'S ROLE
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister if, when he decided to drop the $300 million commitment concerning Hyundai, he had taken the
May 5, 1986

decision on his own or whether he had obtained Cabinet approval?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, on this suggestion that somehow I took the decision alone, of course it was a cabinet decision.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: As far as we are concerned, the negotiation with the Hyundai motor car company was one which we carried on jointly with the Province of Quebec. Eventually our portion of the deal was something that was supported by Cabinet. I really question why the Hon. Member would assume that anything else other than governmental approval was secured.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, in light of the Minister's statement that the decision was made by Cabinet, not by himself, did he in fact follow Subsection 16(8) of the conflict of interest guidelines and in fact declare his conflict, in light of the fact that the connection between his family's personal loan and the Hanil Bank was known not only to himself but to most of the people who were involved in the deal?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker-
Mr. Ax worthy: To the rescue.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Are you back in the saddle, Erik?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, all Hon. Members-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Don't waste your breath. Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like an answer to my question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Minister has a responsibility, and I would like an answer to my question for the people of Canada.


Mr. Crosbie:: Name her.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I would like an answer-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member will resume her seat.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I would like an answer.
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the Hon. Member wants to read what I said to the House earlier this morning, the Hon. Member has the right to ask questions.


Sheila Maureen Copps: He should have pulled himself out of the discussion.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Since the Minister is a member of the Cabinet task force on privatization, is it his intention to sit on that committee when it considers the bids for Canadair and the CDIC recommendations on which of the bids should be accepted?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as far as the bids on Canadair are concerned, as I announced publicly, certain proposals, five in number, were received by CDIC. The officers of CDIC have been reviewing the proposals and have been discussing the proposals with the principals. They have turned to S. G. Warburgs, Merrill Lynch and Burns Fry for advice concerning how the proposals stack up. In due course they will be making a recommendation to the divestiture committee of the board of CDIC. That divestiture committee will likely then make a recommendation to the CDIC board, which in turn will make a recommendation to me. I will then deal with that recommendation and will eventually carry that recommendation to the privatization task force to which the Hon. Member has referred. There is no mystery about that process.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER REMOVE HIMSELF FROM CONFLICT OF INTEREST POSITION
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Whether or not the Minister knew about the loan which his wife arranged with the assistance of the Chairman of Magna International a year ago, the Minister, like most other Canadians, knows about that loan now. Will he tell the House what steps he is taking in order to remove himself now that the conflict is obvious? Is there any other way which he has to remove himself from the conflict except to resign from his position as Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Save your breath, Erik. Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Erik Nielsen: We are back on the same track as last week. The question, which has really been raised by the hon.

May 5, 1986
Oral Questions
gentleman since April 7 and through last week, has the same essential core-an allegation of a failure to comply with the Code of Conduct governing public office holders. I assured him and other Hon. Members all last week, for four days, that that compliance has been had. The Minister is certainly responsible pursuant to our traditions to answer questions arising in the House pertaining to his ministerial responsibility, but certainly not those affairs that are in a blind trust, nor those of a family nature.


Michael Morris Cassidy: It is not blind anymore.


AGREEMENT WITH HYUNDAI COMPANY
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. It is about the public's right to know about the Hyundai deal. The Minister made announcements about the deal with Hyundai and its plans to build in Canada. He tells us that they were forgiven from the $300 million obligation to buy Canadian at that point. Why was that not included in the public statements which he made about the deal? Should not the public have been told when he was giving his Hyundai good news that at the same time 10,000 to 15,000 Canadian jobs were being lost in the forgiveness factor?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the Hon. Member's question is totally unfounded. The truth is that we renegotiated an arrangement as far as the Hyundai motor car company was concerned which we thought would be more beneficial to Canada, would be more job-creative for Canada and, in particular, would give an automotive plant to the Province of Quebec that badly needs more of that type of job-creating activity.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I do not know why he did not say so at the time.


SOURCING IN CANADA-KNOWLEDGE OF PROVINCE OF QUEBEC
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the Minister said that Cabinet knew about this forgiveness. I want to ask him about the Government of Quebec. Was the Government of Quebec told that part of the consideration for the establishment of the plant in Quebec was the forgiveness of the obligation to provide all those purchases in Canada?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, when the Hon. Member refers to forgiveness, it shows how little he understands about the previous commitment. The previous commitment made no guarantee, other than a very minimum guarantee, as far as job creations are concerned. Our agreement preserved the job-creation aspect of the initial agreement but widened it tremendously as far as future jobs in Canada are concerned for the Hyundai motor car company.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Why did you not tell the Canadian people that?


DISASTERS
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the way in which the Tokyo Summit has decimated the front bench, perhaps I could direct my question to the Minister for International Trade. Despite possible risks from radiation which leaked from the nuclear plant in Chernobyl, many Canadian tourists are continuing with their trips to Ukraine. What is the Government doing to minimize travel by Canadians to Ukraine, and what steps will it take to minimize the financial losses of Canadian travellers who cancel their trips?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the Tokyo Summit is being very well served by the Prime Minister and other Ministers who are in Tokyo, and the matter as it concerns Chernobyl is being handled as well. In terms of the answers which the Hon. Member wants, I give him an update which has also been made public-and the last date was May 3 at 1600 o'clock-namely, in Moscow and in Bucharest, the advisory is off; in Warsaw, the advisory remains for children under 16 and pregnant women; and for travellers to that affected area, to the affected area of Kiev and around Chernobyl, the advisory remains that Canadians should not travel to those areas.


AIR CANADA-REQUEST FOR REFUNDS OF AIR FARES
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, will the Government commend to Air Canada the example of British Airways which is making refunds on request to those people cancelling trips, or are we going to stick with refusing refunds for those who feel it would be hazardous to their health?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the issue relates not only to the repayment or the refunding of monies paid for air tickets or air travel. Some companies have indicated there would be a refund or a rescheduling if the travellers so chose. There are other air carriers, to which I would very strongly commend the same action. But, I have to advise the Member that an equal or often a greater amount of money has been spent by Intourist travel packages which the Soviets have not either wanted to reschedule or refund. They have indicated in some cases they will give equivalent travel time or travel to places in areas not affected by the disaster.
May 5, 1986


PETRO-CANADA PRIVATIZATION INQUIRY
Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Chairman of the Standing Committee for Energy, Mines and Resources. Most Canadians agree that the Government must ensure that we attain self-sufficiency and that at least 50 per cent of the oil and gas industry be Canadian-owned. Since many Canadians do not believe that the Government should be in the downstream retail gas station business, has the committee started the question of partial privatization of Petro-Canada, and if not, when does it plan to?


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources has not and is not planning to study the privatization of Petro-Canada. On May 15, the company will be appearing before the standing committee with its annual report.
As the Hon. Member for Don Valley East knows, some 18 months ago the Board of Directors of Petro-Canada appointed a special committee to look into ways and means of possible privatization of the company, and I know questions will be raised on this issue.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Last Thursday the Supreme Court of Canada rendered two unfortunate very restrictive judgments in which the Court substantially curtailed the constitutional rights of the official language minorities in Canada. In the circumstances, is the Government ready to propose a constitutional amendment which would restore those rights lost by the judgments so that Canadians will be free to deal with their Governments in their own official language?
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, there were no rights lost by Canadians as a result of these decisions. The Court was interpreting the constitutional Charter that we now have that was adopted in 1982.
The policy of the Government, of course, goes beyond what the Court found to be the minimum requirement with respect to the issuance of summonses. We are working with the provinces in attempting to enter into a timetable with each of them for adopting procedures so that trials can be held in both official languages in criminal matters right across the country.
Oral Questions
We have taken action where our predecessor Government failed to act.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Nonsense. We passed the legislation, and you know it, dummy.


John Carnell Crosbie: And in the-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Bill C-42-sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please.


John Carnell Crosbie: You have lost the Government. You should be asking questions, you turkey.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Penner:: That is the Minister of Justice speaking. Aren't we proud?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A supplementary question. FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE AGENDA
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the Minister that most Canadians perceive that rights were lost in those judgments. Let me ask the Minister again whether he will at least put on the agenda for the next federal-provincial conference the subject of a constitutional amendment, not ordinary laws, but a constitutional amendment to protect those long traditionally held rights that were perceived lost? They could then be entrenched in the Constitution and people could deal with Governments and courts in their own official language?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this Government will be acting where our predecessors failed to act and will be bringing before this House new policy and new legislation to back up the minimum guarantees that are contained in the Constitution.
Some months ago I discussed with the provinces and had on the agenda with the provinces the question of ensuring that people who wish to use both official languages can be heard in both official languages across the country. We are acting on that as well, where our predecessors did nothing but yaw, as they are doing now in the opposition.


DISASTERS
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and which follows up on questions put by my friend from Kenora-Rainy River. British Airways, which flys to Warsaw, told me this morning that it is giving full refunds to

May 5, 1986
Oral Questions
its travellers. Air Canada is not. Would the Minister please explain why there is that difference and how does this square with his statement on Friday in the House when he said: "We will take whatever steps we can to protect Canadian travellers"?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, it squares very fully with the statement I made on Friday. It was a question of health and that is the responsibility I have as Minister. That is the reason for the statement on Friday.
I think the Hon. Member has to appreciate that from our perspective as Government we would sincerely hope that companies would follow the example of British Airways and Lufthansa, of granting refunds for air fare. I am sure when the Minister of Transport returns to this House I will be discussing this issue with him, as well as others, to try to effect the same kind of response. I think the Member has to know it is a Crown corporation looking at its policies-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE-TRAVELLERS' INSURANCE
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, given that I also checked with Lloyd's of London and Voya-geur Travel Insurance Limited to confirm that they are not going to pay on their policies with respect to health insurance-they do not recognize it as a risk-and given that Air Canada won't give refunds, why does the Government not do something for those travellers? Why does the Government not insure them for this risk?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I do not think suggestions like that are very helpful in a situation like this.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Why not? You are telling them not to go there.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Is the Hon. Member suggesting that the Minister of Health for Canada, when there is a radiation problem, whether in Warsaw or wherever, is supposed to tell Canadians not to go? That is ridiculous.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO PROVINCES-QUEBEC-GOVERNMENT POSITIONS
Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Finance).
With respect to provincial transfer payments, does her Department intend to give preferential treatment to Quebec?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, all provinces are treated the same way by this Government-equitably. Quebec will not be given preferential treatment now or in the future. I should point out that the Conference Board announced yesterday that the Province of Quebec should experience economic growth this year, thanks to the policies of this Government.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, regarding the alleged conflict of interest charges and the Minister of DRIE, we have heard over the past week a description in this Chamber of what appears to be a cosy coterie or club, if you will, involving a Cabinet Minister, his relatives and friends. That is what appears to be the case, Government funded.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


George Baker: The Deputy Prime Minister has failed miserably to erase those doubts. Isn't it time that the Deputy Speaker allows this Minister to answer for himself on these charges?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, quite apart from the extensive added dimension which the Hon. Member has given to the whole question by way of preamble, most of this Question Period has been taken up with the responses of the Minister concerned.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITY
George Baker: Not on the
conflict of interest, as Members have pointed out, Mr. Speaker. The Deputy Prime Minister falls back by saying that we have the right to lay a charge. If we have, as the Deputy Prime Minister claims, the right to lay a charge, does he not agree that we also have a duty to hear what the Minister has to say before laying a charge? Why is he muzzling the Minister on this subject?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, it should be quite obvious to any sane individual who has been watching these proceedings today that, far from muzzling the Minister, he has been paramount in responding to questions today.
MayS, 1986


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Don Boudria: You know that's not true.


Erik Nielsen: In my responsibility with respect to the Code of Conduct I answered those questions very fully all last week and will continue to discharge that responsibility.


John V. Nunziata: It's his responsibility to adhere to the guidelines.


HOUSING
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour who is responsible for housing. By February of 1985 the Minister had made commitments to producers of non-profit, co-operative, rural, native and rehabilitation housing, which commitments were essential to produce that housing that year. Why has the Minister already wasted four months of the planning and building season this year and not yet authorized the funding of any of those programs which he promised in this House last December?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is apparent. Due to the change in delivery and cost sharing, effective in 1986, operating agreements with the provincial housing corporations have to be negotiated. I believe that there are now seven signed globally. There is at least one signed as an operating agreement and we hope to have the other operating agreements with our provincial partners signed in the very near future.


EXTENSION OF 1985 PROGRAMS-INTERIM FUNDING
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Acting on precedent, the Minister could have either extended 1985 programs or provided interim funding for projects which were ready to go. Does he really intend to delay all those housing starts until it is impossible to build that housing this year?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker.


TERRORISM
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. In light of the many concerns raised recently with respect to terrorism, would the Minister of Justice advise the House if he is prepared to increase the penalties for terrorism? In particular, is he prepared to
Oral Questions
consider introducing the death penalty for acts of terrorism committed in Canada?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to accept representations from Hon. Members. The question of capital punishment will be dealt with in due course when this House is seized of it. We all support whatever effective measures can be taken to ensure that terrorist acts do not occur or recur in this country. However, the question with regard to the death penalty must wait until our debate on the subject of capital punishment.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In a recent interview with the Kitchener-Waterloo Record the Minister stated that her Department does not use enforcement quotas in appraising the performance of immigration officials. However, I have two internal departmental documents dated March 13 and April 9 which show clearly that officials are being judged by the number of people they send back.
Given that these documents confirm the use of enforcement quotas, will the Minister finally admit that they do exist in her Department? What immediate measures will she take to remove such repulsive tactics?


Hon. Walter McLean (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, would the Hon. Member please bring forward any specific and concrete examples if he has any? Allegations in this regard have repeatedly been denied by the Minister of Employment and Immmigration and myself. We have indicated that numerical indicators are used only to quantify and indicate what is happening with the various cases we deal with. This has been said before and I repeat it today.


REQUEST FOR SPECIAL INQUIRY
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, whether you call these "numerical indicators" or "statistics", they are quotas and the memos are from his own Deputy Minister and the director of immigration for the Ontario region. Rather than denying the existence of those quotas, will the Minister not establish a special inquiry into this affair so that officers will not be systematically encouraged to intimidate people and send them back illegally?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is entitled to his interpretation. However, I repeat it is important for the Government to know how many admissions, deportations, refugees, and visitors there are. These statistics are used in the process of planning

May 5, 1986
OraI Questions
and organizing. It is, however, the Hon. Member's right to persist in his interpretation.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. There are some who would say that the additional jobs which Hyundai is going to create will be at the expense of presently existing jobs if sourcing is not done in Canada. We can understand why a $300 million deal would be abandoned in favour of some benefits. Would the Minister table any new agreement he has so that the people of Canada, and particularly those in the automotive industry, can see what benefits will obtain as a result of the sacrifice of a $300 million agreement?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why there is a suggestion of a sacrifice of a $300 million agreement. It is such a pity that, after having won a Toyota plant, a Honda plant, and an American Motors plant for the Province of Ontario, the Opposition objects to the Hyundai plant, the first plant to go into the Province of Quebec.


John Edward Broadbent: Come off it.


SOURCING REQUIREMENTS
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, we would like to get some additional documentation from the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. We would like documentation which says that domestic automakers, parts manufacturers, toolers, and capital equipment manufacturers for the automobile industry are happy about having the Japanese and South Koreans come in without any conditions such as those required by the domestic manufacturers under the Auto Pact. Let us see documentation of the enthusiasm of the domestic automakers for what is being done to their disfavour.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, if we judge the Hon. Member's knowledge from his question, we see that he is totally out of touch. The fact is that the automotive manufacturers that are establishing the plants in Canada, which I have been referring to, have all indicated their wish to attain Auto pact status. I have indicated earlier that contractual relationships are worked out by our departmental officials. There has not been an agreement entered into by the Government which has not had the full support of my Department.


Don Boudria: Let's see it. Table the agreement.


CANADA-U.S. NEGOTIATIONS-REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL OF VIDEO TAPES
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of International Trade. Will he agree to withdraw the approximately 400 video tapes which were produced by his Department and our chief trade negotiator on the Government's position on free trade? These tapes exclude two provinces of Canada from a map which purports to represent the whole country. Will he agree to recall those tapes immediately?


Hon. James Kelleher (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is quite correct. There was indeed an error in the computer map. I have instructed the company which produced the tape to produce a corrected version. Each Member of this House and the Senate will receive a corrected version very shortly.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: Cancel my copy.


John Edward Broadbent: Save the expense.


COST OF PRODUCING VIDEO TAPES
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of International Trade tell Members of the House of Commons what the cost to the taxpayers of Canada was for this ill-fated first attempt at portraying the Government's vision of the country to Members of Parliament and Canadians? I await an apology and an estimate of the cost of this faux pas.


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I have already made the cost of the kit public and I can assure the Hon. Member that correction of the mistake will be at no cost whatsoever to the federal Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Barbara Jean McDougall: that a Ways and Means motion to amend the Income Tax Act, laid upon the Table on Wednesday, March 26, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
May 5, 1986

[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 second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendment of Mr. Murphy (p. 12683).
Mr. George Minaker (Winnipeg-St. Janies);: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the debate on Bill C-96. Regardless of which political party one is a member of in this House, we all strongly support post-secondary education and quality health care services. Yet the opposition is trying to lead the Canadian public to believe that great cuts are being made in Established Programs Financing. This is not correct. As a matter of fact, there will be continued growth in that financing over the next five years. The average annual increase will be some 5 per cent, and some $90 billion will be transferred to the provinces over the next five years. That will be $25 billion more than was transferred in the previous five years. Presently, inflation is 4 per cent. It is our objective as a Government to maintain or lower that rate. We can then see the provinces receiving a percentage increase that is greater than inflation.
Let me just give you an idea of the impact that this will have on the provinces. The Province of Manitoba will receive the following amounts over the next five years under Established Programs Financing. In 1984, Manitoba received $618 million. In 1985-86, it will receive $664.9 million, an increase of approximately 10 per cent. In 1986-87, it is estimated that Manitoba will receive $704.8 million. There is no cut-back; the amounts are increasing at a very reasonable rate.
When we have a debate concerning funds transferred to the provinces, the Opposition forgets that around 1967 there was an agreement between the federal and the provincial Governments to transfer tax points to the provinces. The provinces are still receiving those tax points. Yet the provinces, certainly the Province of Manitoba, do not acknowledge that figure. This year it will total some $202 million for Manitoba alone.
I had the opportunity to sit in the Manitoba Legislature for eight and a half years. I know what it is like to sit on the opposite side of the table. I can appreciate how the present Manitoba Government feels about this. However, one thing has always been clear. Whether Members of the present Manitoba Government were in opposition or in Government, they always declared that provincial Governments cannot control inflation or high interest rates. They say it is the federal Government which causes high interest rates and inflation. Therefore, what has this federal Government tried to achieve in its first 18 months in office? It has tried to stop inflation. It has tried to lower interest rates. It has succeeded. We are trying to restrain Government spending and control
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
the deficit. Given that, the approach we are taking with the provinces is a fair approach. We have said that we will continue to increase transfer payments at a rate of 5 per cent a year. This is higher than the proposed growth of other federal expenditures. At the same time we are cutting back the deficit. Federal transfer payments are the third largest federal Government expenditure. Next to our debt service charges, it is the fastest growing expenditure. Therefore, I ask the provinces, particularly the Province of Manitoba, to give consideration to cutting back its deficit.
The Province of Manitoba receives about $1.3 billion from the federal Government annually. That Government's revenue this year will total about $3.1 billion. Therefore, about $42 out of every $100 collected by the Province of Manitoba comes from the federal Government. Even then, the provincial Government has a revenue shortfall of something like $550 million. Certainly the province has some responsibility for restraining its expenditures.
In its budget Estimates, the province shows $59.4 million for post-secondary education and training, $156.3 million for university grants, and $7.7 million for capital grants. That totals $223.4 million. In the same fiscal year, the federal Government will transfer to that province $65.1 million under the EPF tax transfer and $111.6 million under the EPF cash transfer. Then there is the associated equalization transfer payment of $13.6 million. That is a total of $190.3 million. Yet the province's Estimates show it is only going to spend $223.4 million. That obviously means that our share exceeds by far the 50 per cent which was the original plan.
I think we are being fair. It is always tough to try to put your house in order, but I think the fact that we are giving out more money for this purpose than for any of the other federal expenditures, and exceeding the rate of inflation this year and in the coming years, show that we are being fair and practical in this approach.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, the Bill that we are debating, Bill C-96, is a major piece of legislation which is going to have enormous impact in the regions of this country. I say this because, as Hon. Members know, when this Bill passes, as it surely will despite the objections of the opposition parties, it is going to mean in the next six years that there will be a cut-back of more than $8 billion to the provinces of this country.
The share of that cut-back in my own Province of Ontario over the next six years will amount to $3 billion. I am almost certain there would be Hon. Members who would say, "The Province of Ontario is one of the wealthiest provinces of this country. Can't they look after their own responsibilities?", as my hon. friend from the great Province of Manitoba who just spoke indicated, his province can look after its own responsibilities. I want to remind Hon. Members that the Province of Ontario has a vast hinterland with huge costs. I am talking about northern Ontario, which is 60 or 70 per cent of the land

May 5, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
mass. The costs to the Government at Queen's Park are enormous. Premier David Peterson has made it very clear in speaking at First Ministers' Conferences that this sizeable cutback is going to cause serious dislocation and problems in the Province of Ontario.
My hon. friend who just spoke indicated that the reason for Bill C-96 is that we must get our fiscal house in Ottawa in order. We have to do something about the deficit. I do not disagree with him for a moment. Although neither Canadians nor Members of Parliament want to talk about it, it is the single most serious problem in the country right now. It is a crisis.
I sometimes think that what this honourable House really needs is a Member with the stature of Winston Churchill who would warn about the seriousness of the deficit as Churchill warned about the rise of Fascism in Germany, and few listened.
I want to turn to what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) said about Bill C-96 with respect to the deficit. He justified Bill C-96, these huge cuts to the provinces, by saying the following:
-the impact of a runaway federal deficit was far greater than the problem of shifting the deficit to the provincial level.
I want to argue that I think we have to be alarmed and concerned about the deficit. I believe there should be a national program. We should enlist every single Canadian in the cause of reducing our federal deficit. Bill C-96 is not an anti-deficit Bill. All we are doing with Bill C-96 is passing our problem on to the provinces, provinces that cannot afford those additional financial burdens, the poor provinces of this country. Even the well-to-do provinces, as I indicated, are having a good deal of difficulty. With Bill C-96, instead of a financial transfer, what we are doing is transferring, at least partially, the debt of this country.
When this issue was debated in this House on other occasions, such as when we had the 6-and 5-program brought in by the last Liberal administration, there were some good arguments put forward that the provinces should not have to participate by having their transfer payments for post-secondary education cut back. One of the opposition Members in the Conservative Party at that time made an argument, which I think deserves to be repeated. 1 know the gentleman well because he now chairs the Aboriginal Affairs Committee, of which I am a member. I am talking about the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger). He said the following:
We do not solve the problem of budgetary deficits-by fighting with one another as to who is going to spend the dollars in order to provide the service.
That is what we are doing. The way in which we are doing it ought to disturb every single Member in this House because we are doing it by unilateral declaration. When were the provinces called in together to say, "Look, let's work on this together. We have got a serious problem. You get your electorate and we'll get ours and we'll have a national deficit reduction program in this country". This has not been
negotiated. This is a unilateral declaration by the party opposite that stated, during the election campaign that there had been too much confrontation with the provinces. What we really needed in Canada was a reaffirmation of co-operative federalism.
Let me ask my hon. friends, is this co-operative federalism when you just announce to the provinces that there is going to be a $8 billion cut in services to post-secondary education and health in the next six years? Not at all.
Premier David Peterson said at the conference about this announcement, "You don't call it a cut, what you call it is a breach of faith. It is breaking a promise". Let me remind you that another province, namely, New Brunswick, which is under a Conservative Government, reacted by saying, "It is unreasonable for the federal Government to think that the promises that have been made to the provinces can be forgotten. It is unreasonable to think the provinces, which have been taking difficult measures themselves to deal with their own financial situation, can also be expected to absorb part of the problem at the federal level. That was the argument of my hon. friend from Manitoba who preceded me. He said the Province of Manitoba ought to be able to take on part of the federal problem.
If that is what we want the provinces to do, then let us do it in a reasonable and fair way. Let us enlist their support in this endeavour and not do it by unilateral declaration.
Let me trace quickly what the results will be of Bill C-96 when it passes in this House. One possibility would be that the provinces, wanting to maintain at least the level of health care and secondary education, will say, "We have no choice but to increase taxes". If that is the case, then what we are debating here today is a tax increase Bill. In the last 18 months we have had enough of those.
Maybe the provinces will decide-and I would agree with them-that we do not need more tax increases in this country because they are counter-productive for the economy. They simply put the brakes on the economy which we are trying to encourage to grow. They may say, "We will increase our deficit". If they increase their deficits, then how can we call this an anti-deficit measure? Maybe they will say, "We will have to rearrange our priorities". If they do that, will they be forced to reduce the number of hospital beds? If they do that, is Bill C-96 not an anti-health measure? If they restrict the number of students who are allowed to attend schools and colleges, then Bill C-96 is an anti-education measure.
I ask Hon. Members in my concluding paragraph of thought: for goodness' sake, let us reconsider Bill C-96. It is not a carefully though out Bill. It is not an appropriate Bill for these times. Let us take at least another six months and reconsider what we are doing. I ask the Hon. Members if they would join with the parties on this side and approve of the six-month delay in passing Bill C-96. That would be the best action we could take. I am sure that more careful thought will


May 5, 1986

result in a measure that will serve the students and the health care system of this country in a much more acceptable way.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I was dismayed to hear the comments of my colleague from Manitoba who argued that Manitobans and the Manitoba Government should tighten their belts and pay for the cutbacks being implemented by the federal Government. He implied that Manitobans should swallow these cut-backs and reduce their spending.
I want to take a few moments to examine the size of the cutbacks in transfer payments for education and health care, particularly as they affect Manitoba. The Hon. Member from the Conservative Party argued that they were not, in fact, real cut-backs.
There are plans in existence dealing with the level of expenditure that the federal Government makes to the provinces in regard to health and education costs. I will use Manitoba as an illustration. According to the legislation before the House now, those planned expenditures for health and education will be reduced for Manitoba by $13.9 million for the year 1986-87. There will be a further reduction of $29 million in 1987-88, which will grow to $45.6 million in 198889. In 1989-90 that reduction will grow to $63.9 million and to $83.4 million in 1990-91. The total reduction in the transfer payments from the federal Government to the Province of Manitoba for health and education is $235.8 million.
Some people may think that Manitoba is a wealthy province and can easily absorb a cut of $235.8 million in planned transfer payments from the federal Government. I remind the House that Manitoba is very dependent on federal transfer payments since more than one-third of Manitoba's revenue comes from the federal Government, largely in the form of transfer payments. Furthermore, about half of all Manitoba expenditures are in the fields of health and education. Therefore, any cut in federal transfer payments will have a very real negative impact in Manitoba.
Let us consider what a cut of $235.8 million means to Manitoba. It represents an annual cut-back of $1,060 for a family of four. It represents a reduction of $265 for every Manitoban in the federal contribution to that province's services. Since the Government came to office, it has increased taxes for ordinary Canadians by some $2,000 per family. In the last Budget alone there was a tax increase of $ 1,000. While it has increased our taxes, the Government is cutting its contribution to Manitoba by $1,000 per family for health and education.
These cuts represent more than the current total expenditure on universities and community colleges in Manitoba. I ask Members of Parliament, particularly those from Manitoba, how can Manitoba absorb such a blow as a reduction in transfer payments for health and education that amounts to
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
more than that province's total expenditure on universities and community colleges?
Another way to consider the magnitude of these cut-backs in expenditures is to consider that the shortfall in funding equals the 1983-84 budget of all hospitals in Manitoba, with the exception of the St. Boniface Hospital and Health Sciences Centre. These cut-backs total more than the combined salaries of all doctors or all nursing home and pharmacare costs in Manitoba in 1983-84.
The purpose of these illustrations is to demonstrate that the cut-backs in planned expenditures are significant and will hurt Manitoba by forcing a reduction in education and health services.
Let me give a further illustration about medicare to show how the Government is headed in the wrong direction. The percentage of GNP which Canadians devote to health care in this country is lower than that in the United States. The difference between the two countries is that we have a public health care system as opposed to a private health care system in the United States. We must do all we can to preserve and improve our health care system. If we revert to a private health care system, our health care costs will be more than are presently forecast in Canada.
What will the Government do as a result of these cuts in planned expenditures?


Mr. Young:: Exactly what the Liberals did.


Cyril Keeper: As my colleague says, the Government is doing what the Liberals did. Furthermore, the Conservatives are reducing the percentage of the federal Government share in health care.
Rather than cutting its investment in health care, the Government should be investing in long-term health care by finding new ways of delivering health care and improving medicare in this country so that we can reduce the costs in the long term. However, we cannot take the long-term view without being willing to invest in the short term. By cutting now we rob ourselves of the opportunity to re-tool the medicare system and improve it so that it can be more cost-effective than it is today.
I call upon the Government to reconsider its program of cuts to planned expenditures for health care and for post-secondary education.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take part in the debate on Bill C-96 this afternoon and join all those who have spoken to oppose the way this Government is treating the Canadian provinces.
Bill C-96 concerns the joint financing of established programs by the federal Government and the provinces to pay the costs of post-secondary education, hospitalization and

May 5, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
medicare. We all know that the Canadian Government uses a system of redistribution to give money back to the have-not provinces, thanks to the taxes collected from all Canadian provinces. Through this equalization system, the Canadian Government uses the collective wealth of the country and redistributes it equitably amongst the have-not provinces.
However, Bill C-96 under consideration will radically reduce the amounts paid by the Canadian Government to the provinces during the next six years. I have here a table which shows that, during the next six years, between 1986 and 1992, the federal Government will reduce its contribution for post-secondary education, hospitalization and medicare by about $8 billion, or $8,133 million to be exact.
Of course, such a consequence bears heavily on all Canadian provinces, but especially so on the Province of Quebec. Indeed, this will entail a dead loss of about $2 billion over the coming years for the taxpayers and the people of Quebec. Two billion dollars is an abstract figure that people cannot readily appreciate. Just to illustrate: this is equal to two thousand million dollars. Or again, for those who dream of winning $1 million at the lottery, it is in fact nearly $6 million a day that will be lost by for the Province of Quebec over the next six years.
Therefore, it is clear that those $2 billion mean a huge loss for the Quebec Government's coffers. And I cannot but wonder how we can now have this Tory Government reduce the payments that would normally be transferred to the Province of Quebec, without there being one single Conservative Member from Quebec to rise and defend the interests of Quebecers, to prevent such a measure from being passed by this Government.
Where are the Ministers from Quebec on this issue? In particular, where is the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse), who boasts about being a great nationalist, a great champion of the interests of Quebec? Where is he? What will he be doing to stop that kind of discriminatory move against Quebec? Where is the Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle) who was so assertive when he sat in Opposition, but has become so silent since he is sitting on the Government side?
Where are those Ministers, the Secretary of State of Canada (Mr. Bouchard) and the Minister of State for International Relations, those two who supported the "Yes" option and promised to unswervingly defend Quebec's interests at the federal level? It seems to me they are so speechless, if not totally absent from this debate in which the interests of all Quebecers are at stake.
What I find especially disgusting about that measure, which of course will be approved because of the Government's overwhelming majority-since despite every effort by Opposition Members, the measure will inescapably pass when the Tory steamroller of that silent majority comes around to approve the Bill. But what I want to say before we are run over by the steam roller is that it is a unilateral measure against the interests of the provinces, because the Ottawa Government has never negotiated this cut, never having brought the provinces to the negotiating table to reach a decision which would be acceptable
both to the provinces and the central Government. No, Mr. Speaker.
This is a unilateral decision of the Conservatives who have decided to reduce the amounts that are provided every year to the provinces. Yet, Hon. Members will remember that at the time the Conservatives were sitting on Opposition benches, they had promised never to treat the provinces in this way. They would insist that the word "unilateral" would be banished from the Conservative vocabulary. It is therefore very sad, when one considers what they are doing with Bill C-96, to realize that this is a unilateral measure which will severely affect the Quebec economy.
What is even more serious-and I want to emphasize this as I am about to run out of time-is that this Conservative Government is introducing this legislation at a time when we learn that it has betrayed the commitment it had made last year to the province of Quebec concerning Bill C-39 which it had introduced in the House to provide supplementary fiscal equalization payments, and I quote the comments made at the time by the Minister of State (Finance) (Mrs. McDougall) on behalf of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), as reported in Hansard on April 18, 1985, and I quote:
The equalization program now protects provinces against declines in payments from one year to the next in a way which varies with their capacity to raise revenues. The highest protection, the 95 per cent floor, is given to those provinces which are not as strong fiscally as others and ensures their payments will decline by no more than 5 per cent from one year to the next.
Well, we have just learned from the Quebec Minister of Finance, on the occasion of his Budget speech, that in fact the Conservative Canadian Government has not kept its promises. And it is not 95 per cent it has granted the Province of Quebec, but 92.8 per cent, which will mean a loss of $66 million for the year ending March 1986. Yet, the Minister of Finance himself, in reply to a question from one of my colleagues on this side of the House, had made the following statement on April 1, 1985, and I quote:
I would like to respond to that question by saying that what we were trying to do was to provide a fair resolution to a difficult problem and one which was considerably more difficult for the Provinces of Quebec, Manitoba and Nova Scotia because they were going to suffer an absolute shortfall. In taking into account this principle of fairness, we decided that we should establish some rationale for dealing with the shortfall. That was, as I indicated in my remarks, to establish a 95 per cent floor for the three provinces-
-which will benefit.
Mr. Speaker, as I said before, the Conservative Government broke the promise it made in April 1985. Over the past fiscal year alone, the Conservative Government has made Quebec lose $66 million which the Quebec Minister of Finance will have to find elsewhere. And on top of everything, to put the icing on the cake, today we are faced with a Bill that will cause the Province of Quebec to incur a loss of $2 billion within the next six years.
This is shameful and scandalous, and I think the silence of our Conservative Members from Quebec on this issue is
May 5, 1986

absolutely unconscionable. Where are they? Why are they silent? And how come there is not a single Minister from the Province of Quebec here in the House, at this very moment, to rise and defend the interests of the Province of Quebec and its people?


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have an opportunity to say a few words on Bill C-96 today. The title of this Bill is a rather lengthy one and it is one that, quite frankly, very few people understand or have knowledge of. The Bill is entitled an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977.
The Act to which the title of the Bill refers assists provinces in providing hospital insurance, medicare, extended health care and grants for post-secondary education. The Bill itself consists of some five pages. The effect of this Bill will be that each one of those pages will cost something like $1 billion in terms of the provinces' ability to finance the programs I have just mentioned. The effect of this Bill will be to chop in excess of $5 billion over the next four or five years from those programs.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) argued in support of his actions by saying that these measures are designed to moderate the growth rate of payments to the provinces. I suppose that is the newspeak of the late 1980s. In fact, these measures will reduce the ability of many provincial Governments to provide good quality medical care and post-secondary education. Canadians who live in Prince Edward Island or Newfoundland will be entitled to receive a lower quality of health care than those living in British Columbia or one of the better-off provinces. That is what this Bill means. It is a direct attack on medicare and post-secondary education.
I remember that not too many years ago, the then Liberal Government tried to do exactly the same thing. What the Conservative Government is doing today is a continuation of what the Liberal Government tried to do before it was defeated. I am quite sure you will be interested to know, Mr. Speaker, that when the Liberal Government introduced that legislation, the very Hon. Members who are now on the opposite side and are proposing to do exactly the same thing were highly critical of what the then Government was doing. On February 1, 1982, the now Minister of Finance said the following in the House of Commons:
The Minister is prepared to cut spending in two very important areas. He is prepared to risk major cut-backs in medical care and post-secondary education.
Rather than rush into this on a unilateral basis and force spending cuts and service cuts on the provinces, would the Minister consider entering into two or three national conferences on health and post-secondary education so that we can set out the national objectives of the various levels of Government in these two important areas before we cut spending, and before we cause closures of hospitals and cut-backs in post-secondary education?
The question that begs to be answered is, why did the Minister of Finance not do exactly what he felt the Liberal
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
Government should have done before he brought in these measures?
The Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), the present Chairman of the Finance Committee, was equally critical in a speech he made in the House on March 22, 1982. On April 5, 1982, the now Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle) had this to say:
In fact, the Minister of Finance has been dragging us through the mill in the past few months and the provinces are, as it were, squirming in a financial strait-strait-jacket, because the federal Government is reducing its deficit by cutting funds to the provinces.
That is exactly what that gang over there is doing today. They are doing what they were so critical of when the Liberals tried to do it in 1982.
I could go on. The Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) and the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) were equally critical. The present Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) decried the cut-backs and predicted that the Atlantic provinces are singularly vulnerable to any federal Government belt-tightening in these areas. He said that on April 5, 1982.
You will be interested to hear, Mr. Speaker, that on February 7, 1984, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) said the following:
Mr. Speaker, this is a deplorable piece of legislation because the principle of it is one of betrayal. The Bill betrays the provinces of Canada, the provincial governments of Canada and betrays the universities of Canada. It betrays postsecondary institutions of Canada. It betrays the young people of Canada and it illustrates rank hypocrisy in the actions of the Government.
I have yet to hear him say that of today's Government because he is a part of it. Yet it is equally hypocritical for this Government to do what it accused the previous Government of doing.
The words of the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) were dandy when she spoke in the House on April 5, 1984. She castigated the Government for its inhumane treatment of and attitude toward Canada's sick. She deplored the fact that young people would be faced with huge increases in tuition fees in order to receive a higher education. In fact, she went on at great length to the point that the Liberal Government of the day was left practically without any credit at all.
I could go on, but I am quite sure that those who are interested may go through those speeches themselves and try to figure out the difference between that gang over there and the Liberal Government that was rejected by the Canadian people. There ain't any difference. In fact, if anything, this Government is more hypocritical than the previous one because of the criticisms it levelled at the previous Government for doing exactly what it is doing today. In fact, the cuts this Government is proposing are even more severe than those made by the Liberal Government.
I could go on and on about the impact of those cuts, but the real impact will be on the future of medicare. As a party that fought for everyone's right to adequate health care, we deplore

May 5, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
what the Government is doing. I want to address health care from another point of view, and that is, from the point of view of prevention.
I noticed that the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), in a speech he made last weekend to a conference, spoke about the need to bring in preventive health care programs for Canada's elderly. He waxed eloquent about preventive health care. He seemed to be sincere in what he was saying. The Minister of National Health and Welfare should stand in the House, be honest and criticize the Government for what it is doing to the programs under his Department. He should fight on behalf of the people of Canada and say that they have a right to adequate, good health care services, whether they live in Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Ontario, the prairie provinces, or indeed British Columbia. We have not heard a peep from him on the health care programs or on where we are going in the future development of health care.
If the Government gets away with what it is trying to do today, there will not be any health care about which to worry in the future because it will have effectively destroyed the entire medicare system in Canada.


Mr. Charles Hamelin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to the legislation before the House this afternoon. As we heard since this morning and last Friday, the Opposition has been giving the impression that the Members from Quebec are a bunch of spineless nobodies who could not care less about the interests of Quebec, and there were others who claimed that this legislation was going to deal a mortal blow to the finances of the Government of Quebec. We have been accused of the most heinous motives with respect to education and health care. We have supposedly become a bunch of sadists who are chortling with glee at the cutbacks in health care programs.


An Hon. Member:: You are right.


Charles-André Hamelin: I see some Members of the Opposition who are making petty politics out of this issue and who seem to think they will hoodwink Canadians and have them believe we are inconsistent, quite stupid and devoid of social conscience. They do not shy from attacking our Quebec Ministers by saying that they are not extremely quiet about this.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the truth is quite different. The truth is quite different because Quebec is also part of Canada; under the Civil Code provisions one is free to accept or reject a bankrupt inheritance, but there is no such option in politics. We have been saddled with the Liberal inheritance, our inheritance from all Canadian Liberals, and that is what we have to administer.
As a province Quebec must also accept its inheritance, and we were left with a deficit running into billions of dollars.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, here is what editorialist Michel Roy wrote in La Presse of March 11, 1985, and I quote:
There is no doubt that the equalization system set up under federal legislation on fiscal agreements is being severely tried this year. When the current agreements (1982-87) were negotiated in 1981-the central Government did everything it could to lighten the heavy burden of transfers to the provinces.
At the time-1981-82-the Liberals were in the driver's seat and they could see the balloon swelling, about to blow up any minute.
Michel Roy went on to say:
Because it was increasing at an amazing rate while compounding the deadlock of the federal deficit which now reaches the $35 billion mark, the decision was made to set a ceiling on the costs of established programs and to change the equalization formula-which profits six provinces-to the extent that the latter lost their guaranteed fiscal revenues which until then was their insurance that they would never in any year get an amount lower than the previous year's.
Since that new provision met with violent protests-
Of course, each province was interested in getting as much as possible from the federal Government
-Ottawa had agreed to extend to March 31st, 1985, the fiscal revenue guarantee. This means the provinces have known for three years that they would not get for fiscal year 1985-86 the amounts they had been expecting.
That decision was not taken by Mr. Mulroney. And it is no surprise to Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the Opposition is playing petty politics with the Bill. Faced with such an inflation in the cost of social programs, the runaway increase of all transfer payments to the provinces, we took the opposite course from that followed by the Liberal Opposition when they were in power-we decided to restore some sort of order and to limit to 5 per cent the runaway increase of those costs, so that the provinces themselves would strive for a better management of their expenditures, make an in-depth review of their projects, and their programs. In so doing we invited them to duplicate this Government's collective effort to put to better use our expenditures and fiscal revenues. As you know, in all cases the Government is financing those programs often on a 50 per cent basis, but it has nothing to say about how the funds that are transferred to the provinces and to Quebec are spent. One does not need to have great divining powers to find out that it often happens that the provinces have used those funds for all sorts of purposes and for their miscellaneous expenditures. Nonetheless, as the central Government we have almost nothing to say.
Moreover, contrary to what the Opposition is now suggesting, we are actually reducing the runaway transfer costs. In absolute terms, they will not lose a penny. On the contrary, during the years to come, under those programs, the provinces will get additional funds of $25 billion.
Of course, we set a ceiling on the increase, we are asking the provinces to strive seriously for a rationalization of their expenditures. As a Quebecer and as a Canadian, as Members of the Quebec caucus, we have been following that exercise

May 5, 1986
and the consideration of the Bill. We could have allowed those costs to become inflated as the Liberals did. I think that on the whole, the Tory caucus agrees that such a step, far from axing those programs will allow a slower and more reasonable increase.
Mr. Speaker, this Government believes that this Bill is to the advantage both of the Government and of Canadian men and women of this and future generations, and we hope, because of this legislation, to be better able in coming months and years to meet their needs because we shall have at our disposal more substantial sources of financing and a reasonable budget which will take into our actual capacity to pay as a nation. Mr. Speaker, this is what this Bill proposes, it proposes common sense, logic and reason.
1 am sure that Canadians and Quebecers will not be fooled by the political games which are being played in this place to suggest that this Government is ignoring their concerns. That is not true. We do address their concerns and we shall continue to do so rationally, intelligently and with determination.



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)-North Atlantic Treaty Organization-Provision of fighter aircraft to Turkey-Greek Cypriots' fears; the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson)-Air Safety-Arctic airports program-Request for reinstatement; and the Hon. Member for Broadview- Greenwood (Ms. McDonald)-Social Security-Preoccupation of women concerning social programs, (b) National Action Committee recommendation.



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 second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendment of Mr. Murphy (p. 12683).
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to hear the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin) because he said that the Opposition was engaging in petty politics in that it was upset about Bill C-96. Let us examine what the Member for Charlevois considers to be petty politics. Let us bear in mind that the Member's riding is located adjacent to the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) and in between the Prime Minister's riding and Quebec City. Obviously being geographically close to the Prime Minister one could assume, given the importance of back-benchers in that administration, that this Member has the Prime Minister's ear and the Prime Minister has his ear. Indeed, he speaks straight from the horse's mouth, as it were, on behalf of the Prime Minister when he says that the Opposition's complaints about Bill C-96 are petty.
Let us see what petty matters the Opposition is complaining about. It is complaining about a cut in funds to the Province of Quebec in 1986-87 of $82.3 billion, a cut in 1987-88 of $174.9 million for education and health, another cut in 1988-89 of $277.2 million, a cut in 1989-90 of $389.2 million, a cut in 1990-91 of $512 million, and a cut in 1991-92 of $647.6 million, for a total petty cut to the Province of Quebec of $2,083.6 million. The Member for Charlevois, whose riding is geographically located next to the Prime Minister's and in between Quebec City thinks that that cut is petty. He has been listening to the Prime Minister. What are they saying in Quebec City?
The Minister of Finance for the Province of Quebec, who is in Quebec City and on the Member's other side and to whom the Member should sometimes listen, says that the measure is unfair to the provinces. You know what it is, Mr. Speaker? Let us call the federal Government the head of the household. This kind of financial measure, this kind of passing the deficit on to the provinces, is the equivalent of the head of the household buying himself a new suit, a new pair of shoes and showing his neighbours and friends how prosperous he is by wearing his new suit and shiny shoes, trying to convince his neighbours that he is prosperous because he dresses so well and has his finances in order. Meanwhile, other members of the family are pretty shabbily clothed, are ill fed and are doing without sufficient shelter. It is predatory prosperity that the Government is practising. The Government is saying to the people of Canada that because it has some magical mythical policy to reduce the deficit, it has passed $8 billion worth of deficit on to Canada's 10 provinces.
The federal Government, with its new suit on, says, "Look at that. We have our financial house in order", but the provinces, in so far as education and health is concerned, will be more shabbily dressed than ever. As a matter of fact, when you examine what is now happening in some of our postsecondary educational institutions and hospitals, let us say it is not an exaggeration to suggest that some of our provinces in those two fields will be naked, not just shabbily dressed.

May 5, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
I rise today to support this motion to apply a six-month hoist to Bill C-96. I have just come from a conversation in the last few minutes with a gentleman from the Newfoundland Legislature who is concerned about education in Newfoundland. He told me that in Memorial University in Newfoundland the average wage of faculty members is $8,000 below the wage paid in other Atlantic institutions. He told me that Memorial University has become a raiding institution for other colleges, not colleges that promise fantastic bonuses or additional perks but colleges that are simply offering a decent wage. He told me that 62 people this week are being laid off at Memorial University, that the Memorial extension program, which is setting up extension programs around our rather large province of Newfoundland and Labrador to bring the services of that university to people no matter where they live, is being cut. He told me that 30 people have been laid off in the medical institution in the last few months and that the Established Programs Financing as outlined in Bill C-96 will deliver a death-like blow to an institution that is already on its knees.
I have picked up Bill C-96 and have found out what it promises the Province of Newfoundland, a province that has the lowest per capita income in Canada, a province that has the highest per capita debt in the country. What do I see, Mr. Speaker? I see that $187.7 million is to be chopped in transfer payments to a province where the university is already disintegrating before our eyes and where health care and the days of getting reasonably good health care are nothing more than a fond memory.
That is not what Canada is all about. That is not cooperative federalism. That is not in the words of the Prime Minister, a brand new day for Canada. That is cowardice, Mr. Speaker. This Government is so infected with its own rhetoric and so committed to fulfilling its own propaganda that rather than get its own house in order, cut back its own programs, admit that the world is not as simple as ABC to fix as the Conservatives suggest, the Government is cutting back $8 billion to the provinces, $2 billion to the Province of Quebec, which cut the Hon. Member for Charlevoix calls petty.
Parliamentarians should always remind themselves as they sit in this Chamber, sometimes rather empty with an echo coming back at you, that what we say and do here is not just for the benefit of parliamentarians in the Chamber, not just for the benefit of the few who come to watch from the galleries, but ultimately what we say and, more important, what we do here will be measured by the people of Canada. The eyes of the people of Canada are on us now. They are telling us that any time we walk away from the young people, any time we say that the human potential, that is this nation, can be measured purely in dollars and cents in a corrupt attempt to reduce the deficit, we have failed in our responsibility.
The true measure of any country is the way we treat our senior citizens and the way we treat our citizens. When we say with respect to our senior citizens that health care which they
need and have come to depend upon in their old age may no longer be there, and when we say to our young people that they are a resource we cannot afford to invest in, we have failed in our responsibility.
I urge all Members to vote to suspend Bill C-96 for a period of six months so that the Government opposite may realize that a breach of faith with our citizens is more than a petty complaint.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I could not help thinking as I listened to my good friend and colleague who just sat down how strange it is to be in politics. One cannot help but wonder at the changes which take place with the changes of position in the House of Commons. I am sure that my good friend and colleague has not personally changed his view. He probably castigated the previous Liberal administration as severely as he has castigated the Conservative administration when the Liberal Government was instituting the very thing with which we are faced today. I say sincerely that I do not doubt for a moment that he would be one of the few voices in the Liberal caucus, together with his seat-mate, who would have risen to say how inappropriate it was to reduce the level of increase in the transfer payments to the provinces. I find it a dilemma when daily I hear my friends in the Liberal Party criticizing their friends in the Conservative Party for the very things which they themselves were about to do or had already started to do before they lost the last election. I suppose I will get used to it in time, but I do confess that it is difficult.
Nevertheless, I do agree with the comments that were made. The points which were made are absolutely correct. The inappropriateness of the Government's action is clear to anyone who cares to take a moment or two to try to analyse the impact of the actions proposed. Along with a number of other things, it establishes in my mind what is wrong with the Government. It is not able to set its priorities properly. It does not seem capable of fully understanding the impact of its actions. The shift in the weight of transfer payments is as ill-conceived, inadequately analysed, and improperly explained as is the Government's move toward free trade. When added to all of the other actions taken by the Government, it amounts to a failure by the Government to come to grips with the reality that is Canada.
Many years ago this country made a commitment to the maintenance of a standard of health and education which would be applicable regardless of where one lived within the broad expanse of Canada. The country made a decision years ago that the have areas of the land would be prepared to share with those which had not, or had less. This kind of action undermines the very essence of that understanding. That is what is wrong with what is happening. It goes to the very core of the co-operative federalism which is the historic birthright of Canadians.
May 5, 1986

It is impossible to provide an adequate level of health care or an adequate level of post-secondary education without the federal Government, with its vastly greater taxing powers, contributing proportionately to its capacity. That will not happen and will, therefore, result in the deterioration of the health care systems and post-secondary education systems which exist across the country. It is easy to say that either the provinces will take up the slack or individuals will be asked to pay some form of user-fee, which seems to be becoming the watchword for everything the Conservative Government does.
It is easy to say that, but when you ask people anywhere in Canada whether they will be able to provide for their children the monies necessary to allow them to continue with their education to the post-secondary level, the answer is inevitably that they are not able to do that any more. They say that their disposable income has been shrunk considerably by the federal Government, along with other Governments, taxing them to the point where they are unable to provide their families with that opportunity which is the basis for the greatness which Canada was in fact achieving. That happens to every family. I really wonder what the outcome of this action will be.
David Peterson, the Premier of Ontario, who is not exactly a soul mate of mine, in responding to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) at the First Ministers' Conference in November, said:
We are also dismayed by the federal Government's plans to cut Established Program Funding transfer payments for post-secondary education and health. These cuts will amount to about $6 billion over the next Five years. These cuts, which were announced without consultation, speeded up by a year without discussion, will weaken our country in the very areas where we must marshal our greatest strength-
In the fiscal year 1986-87 the Province of Ontario will receive $114 million less than it would have otherwise received. In the fiscal year 1987-88 it will receive $243 million less than it would otherwise have received. In 1988-89 it will receive $387.6 million less than it would otherwise have received. In 1989-90 it will receive $546.6 million less than it would otherwise have received. In 1990-91, at the end of the agreement, it will receive $722.7 million less than it would have otherwise received, for a total loss to the Province of Ontario of $2,014.1 million.
Given that post-secondary education and health are already under-funded, where will we get the money to maintain the standards which now exist, which in fact are even lower than the standards we had previously? We do not have sufficient funds to provide the opportunity for those who are in need of health care to go to a hospital and be made well, or for those young people upon whose brains the country will be built to continue their education in order to make Canada a stronger place. The Government had better re-think and re-establish its priorities. Right now it is destroying the co-operative federalism on which the country was built.


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few words to the debate on Bill C-96, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977. We are presently speaking on a motion for a six-month hoist. I certainly agree that this Bill should be given a six-month hoist and brought back to the House with major changes because it is going to cause a lot of problems for the people of the country.
As the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) so eloquently put it, this country has had federal and provincial arrangements and collective agreements for many, many years. We have to maintain the right of all Canadians to equal access to quality health care and education no matter where they live. This Bill will cut $8 billion from the provinces by the year 1992. That money will have to come from the provincial Treasuries. Where are they going to get it? They get it from the same source as the federal Government here in Ottawa, namely, the taxpayer. In education, for example, if the provinces choose not to rely entirely on increased taxes to cover this shortfall, they could use another form of tax by increasing tuition fees. We already have many students, certainly in Atlantic Canada, who are having terrible difficulty in meeting the tuition fees they have to pay now. There are areas of this country, including my own province, where we have very high unemployment and very little opportunity for young people to find summer jobs in order to help finance their education. There are also economic circumstances in many places which work against the parents of those students being able to help financially. I am sure that any farmer in P.E.I. over this last year or so would have great difficulty in finding extra money to help his son or daughter to go to university. They, too, are in a serious financial bind.
We have heard it said in this debate today that this $8 billion cut-back is a transfer of the tax burden and deficit to the provinces. That, I submit, is the case. While the federal Government may be able to look good by reducing its deficit, it does not give relief to the ordinary citizen of this country because he or she is going to have to bear the burden of provincial taxation. These cuts will mean an accumulated loss, if you will, of $2,929 million from 1986 to 1992 for the Province of Ontario.
For my own Province of Prince Edward Island it will mean $1.6 million less for the year 1986-1987, $3.4 million for the year 1987-1988, $5.4 million for 1988-1989, $7.6 million for 1989-1990, $10 million for 1990-1991, and $12.7 million for 1991-1992. That is an accumulated loss, if you will, of $40.8 million. That represents well over $330 for every man, woman and child living in my province. Call it what you like, it is still a form of taxation because they are going to have to come up with that money which, in most cases, they just do not have. Someone is going to suffer.
What can the provinces do if they decide not to increase taxes? Should they cut the number of hospital beds? In my province there is a great need for an increase in health care, not a cut. What about education? Should the provinces close

May 5, 1986
Federal- Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
universities? My province has only one university, the University of Prince Edward Island. I do not think it would be a very wise decision for the Government to cut funding and close that university, especially at a time when the new veterinary college will be opening in the fall. Where is the money coming from for that? The educational system in my province is already financially strapped. Tuition fees are too high. University professors are working for less than the national average salary for their position. In these circumstances it is very difficult to find areas to make cuts in the so-called fat we hear so much of these days. Over the last number of years the Commission for Higher Education in Atlantic Canada has cut that fat to the bare bone, almost to the point where our educational system in Atlantic Canada is suffering. It is impossible to find more dollars there.
What about health care for our senior citizens? Of course, health care costs are increasing drastically. Yet how we treat our elderly is a measure of the kind of country we are. This Bill certainly flies in the face of what I have always thought Canada was all about; a place where we provide not only equal opportunity for education, but equal opportunity for quality health care to the best of our ability, no matter where you live. Obviously you cannot have everywhere the kind of hospital facilities that we have in, say, downtown Toronto. However, that is not to say we should not provide quality health care for our citizens. No matter whether they live in the north, or the extremities of the east or west, no matter whether they live anywhere in Ontario and Quebec, they should have equal opportunity to quality health care. However, when we look at provinces like Quebec and Ontario, we find a tremendous burden is going to be placed on some of our larger provinces. There will be cuts in service or tax increases.
Why is the Government doing this? It says it has to control the deficit. The Government brought in Bills which were debated and passed by this House to support the banks when they were in financial difficulty. We have supported the agricultural industry in the west. Certainly it needs the help, and certainly more money is needed to help farmers all across this country.
Let us not forget our young people. They are the future of our country, the ones who will be carrying on in the future. They are the men and women who will represent us in this astute Parliament and will be performing the functions of government. We should give them the opportunity to do the very best job possible. We should never cut back in areas of education or health.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West);: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have another chance to speak on this Bill and the amendment regarding the six-month hoist. I want to say to the government Members that, should they accept the amendment, we would be only too happy for them to bring in a new Bill which would take into account what people across Canada are saying about the wrongness of the reduced increases in
expenditures needed for health care and post-secondary education in this country.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) quoted at length Conservative Members presently in the Government and in the Cabinet. They railed against the Liberals from 1977 to 1984, except for a brief time in 1979, for what the Liberals were doing regarding funding for health care and post-secondary education. I think the Conservatives at that time were right. Then he had to sit and suffer while listening to Liberals making the same speech as the Tories did since 1977. I have been here a little longer than he has and have had to suffer through that as well.
I want to disagree with my colleague, because after quoting the Conservatives now in the government he concluded that "there ain't no difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives". Well, I disagree with him. There is one difference, and that is that one is in and one is out.
As Tommy Douglas said on more than one occasion, they take money from the rich and votes from the poor and then promise to protect them from each other. Nothing has changed between the Liberals and the Tories since the days of the "dirty thirties" when the Liberal Finance Minister said, "What do you think, money grows on gooseberry bushes?" They talked exactly the same way in the seventies and the eighties.
Something of which I am very proud is that my province, during the past four decades, led Canada and all of North America in health care, in the way we treat our sick and our old, and what we provide for our young by way of advanced education.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) just made the point that there is something wrong with the priorities of this Government and the previous one. He is dead on. Saskatchewan will lose $227.4 million between now and 1990-91. That is not a lot compared to Ontario, Quebec or even B.C. That is as much or more than one of those fighter planes. I was reminded of that by my colleague from Hamilton Mountain. The priority is always there on a fighter plane we neither need nor can use, instead of giving priority to those who are sick and need the fullest opportunity for secondary education.
This is the time to be expanding health care, educational facilities and opportunities, not reducing them. We readily agree that there has to be efficient spending, administration and delivery of federal funds through the provinces for the purposes of health care and post-secondary education, a better distribution of medical practitioners, which should mean additional costs to be shared equally by the federal Government with the provinces. There should be specialists in outlying areas of our provinces and our territories who should be paid additional money.
There should be the latest technology available in some of our outlying areas to allow the best medical practitioners to treat people as equally, in terms of medical practice, as they
May 5, 1986

would in downtown Toronto or downtown Regina. That means higher cost, and I have yet to run into any taxpayer in Canada of any political stripe who is not willing and prepared to pay his or her fair and equitable share of taxes to do that very thing.
We should provide opportunities for people to pursue secondary education and quit becoming a nation of exploited hamburger slingers, gas pump jockeys, bellhops, sky caps and taxi drivers. In fact, I ran into a taxi driver last week with a masters degree. They are all exploited for the benefit of what is called free and open market forces. Their talents are wasted. The priorities of this Government are banks, before farmers and home owners. The priority of this Government is its paranoia and hysteria about deficits, before farmers, fishermen, and, more seriously, before the poor, the old, the sick and those who try to pursue excellence in education.
An Hon. Member spoke last Friday and said that, "We can only provide what we can afford to pay". He proceeded to go on and on about our debt. If there is any one thing we can afford to pay for it is health care and it is secondary education. There has never been any argument about that. It took years to accomplish it. After all those decades of fighting we finally arrived at a 50/50 partnership between the national Government, the provinces and the Territories. The onus is on the federal Government to say to the provinces, "We will share with you 50/50 improvements and expansion in health care and postsecondary education". We will monitor them to ensure that those funds are actually delivered for those purposes alone. That is fair ball.
I want to close by quoting one of my favourite political heroes and mentors. Mr. Douglas, at our convention in Regina in 1983, during one of his most famous speeches, said, after all these years of fighting and gains: "Don't let them take it away". I believe he was being relatively non-partisan.
We, along with many others in this country, will fight tooth and nail, and will take every avenue open to us under the law and under parliamentary procedure, to see that the Government will not take it away. We will go to whatever lengths we must, under the law and parliamentary procedure, to persuade the Government not to continue doing what the Liberals began.
The people of Canada are willing to pay and are willing to share with one another, from coast to coast, in what we need, what we support and what we must do over the next number of years to keep our nation in the forefront and show others how we can be a decent and civilized society for everyone in our country.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I regret having only 10 minutes to talk about this very important betrayal by the federal Government of its traditional responsibilities to the provinces. That betrayal is particularly unseemly for a Government that campaigned on the promise
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
that there would be new and good relations between the central Government and the provinces-changes for the better once the so-called days of confrontation were put behind them.
In speaking to this budget Bill, I want to focus on an even more significant question. It is the important promises that were made during the election campaign that the new Conservative Government would save the Canadian taxpayers billions of dollars by terminating the waste and extravagance of the former Trudeau Government. After campaigning on the promise that it would be possible to reduce the cost of Government by billions of dollars, without cutting important programs, let us consider where the billions of dollars are being cut from federal government waste and extravagance.
The first point to be made about the billions of dollars being cut is that they are a measure of proof that the Government has not found the billions of dollars in waste and extravagance. Surely even a Conservative Government, with a philosophy that there should be less Government and that the provinces should be allowed to function themselves and finance programs in their own areas of responsibility, would not cut these postsecondary and health care programs if it could have kept its promise to cut the waste and extravagance that it had identified for the Canadian people.
The Government has cut the Established Programs Financing, which is the national Government's way of supporting post-secondary education and health care. I have a chart to which some of my colleagues have referred. It shows that if this Bill goes through, there will be a cut across the country of $317.4 million in 1986-87 in money that would otherwise be given to the provinces for those two very important purposes. In 1987-88, the cut-back will amount to $676.8 million, slightly over $1 billion in 1988-89, and $1.5 billion in 1989-90. In 1990-91, the cut for that year alone is slightly over $2 billion, and in 1991-92, six years from now, the cut will be $2.5 billion if this Bill is passed. The total for that entire period is slightly over $8 billion.
While the Budget has succeeded in saving the federal Government slightly over $8 billion, that saving has not come from cutting waste and extravagance or tightening the federal Government's belt in its areas of discretionary spending. That savings was not achieved by cutting back the size of the Public Service or locating the waste and extravagance about which the Government campaigned and which it tried to pin on the Trudeau Government. It comes as a result of asking the provinces to tighten their belts and deprive Canadians across Canada of support for two of the most important social programs-post-secondary education and health care.
I want to look at the situation in my Province of Ontario. The proposed cut for 1986-87 would be $114 million; nearly $250 million in 1987-88; almost $400 million in 1988-89; over $500 million in 1989-90; nearly $750 million for 1990-91; and $916 million in 1991-92. That is a total of almost $3 billion over that six-year period.

May 5, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
The federal Government and the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) have been asked to acknowledge at least these figures which come from their own documents. I suppose they are hoping that the Canadian people will not listen to what these figures suggest so that the Government will not have to defend the facts contained herein. When asked if these figures are true, the junior Minister of Finance has repeatedly refused to face up to them but simply stated that each year the Government will be paying more to the provinces than the previous year.
The Government cannot deny the fact that if this Bill is passed there will be a reduction by the amounts I have cited as compared to what the provinces would get if this Bill does not pass.
1 suggest that the Government has underestimated the Canadian people. They are not so stupid as to believe that simply because the amounts to be paid to the provinces will increase a little every year, they are not being cut back by the amounts we have suggested from the Government's figures. The provinces are being asked to tighten their belts by somewhat over $8 billion over a six-year period.
The federal Government has been a partner in these two programs since their creation. I recall in 1967 how much the federal Government pushed to bring all the provinces on board in order to establish medicare. It is true that medicare is within provincial jurisdiction, but the federal Government backed that program. In effect, we told the provinces that if they passed that legislation we would support these programs. The purpose of the legislation was to support these programs.
The federal Government promised Canadians that it would cut back the cost of Government, but instead of cutting back on the cost of the federal Government it is cutting back and asking for belt-tightening on behalf of provincial Governments.
I want to ask the Government a number of questions about health care. Should the provincial Government of my province, Ontario, respond to the federal Government's reduced support by cutting the number of hospital beds? Should it cut the number of emergency departments in hospitals? Should it cut out health care for senior citizens? Should it cut out the tremendous support which has been given to cancer research? Should hospitals be closed? Should we force our senior citizens or the handicapped in Ontario and elsewhere in the country to pay user-fees? With this great leadership which it is showing in cutting back expenditures, how does the Government expect the provinces to respond to the cut-backs in health care?
I know that I have but a minute left. Yet I have more questions. I think the Government owes something to Canadians if it is withdrawing support and no longer wants to be an equal partner in university and post-secondary education. How does the Government expect the provinces to respond to this series of enormous cuts? Should universities be closed? Should research at universities be terminated? Should we close our
professional, medical, dental, business and architecture schools? Should we close computer and high technology departments at universities? And what about agriculture and research programs at universities? Should we increase tuition fees?
What really revolts us is when we hear the federal Government responding to such questions with a new discovery. It has discovered waste and extravagance in these programs. In order to get elected the Government convinced the public that it would cut waste and extravagance in the federal Government. Now that the Government is in place and finds that there is not waste and extravagance, it proposes to cut funding of health care and post-secondary education. Members of the Government say that these areas can be cut easily because there is a great deal of waste and extravagance in them. That allegation is just a lot of nonsense.
I urge Members of the House, even Conservative Members, to vote against this nefarious piece of legislation.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), I feel obligated-not pleased, but obligated-to participate in the debate this afternoon on Bill C-96. This Bill is basically legislation to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act.
As Hon. Members have pointed out before me, the thrust of this important piece of legislation is simply to cut back on two crucial and national areas of importance, that is, education and health. Basically, there is a feeling within Canada that the Government is tranferring its responsibility with respect to what it says and preaches in terms of deficit reduction to the provinces.
What will this mean in the Province of Ontario? What will it mean to the people of Ontario? This year it will mean a reduction of some $114 million. Following the statistics and numbers through preceding years, it will result in a loss of some $2,929 billion-almost $3 billion-in direct losses alone between the years 1986 and 1992 in the Province of Ontario. The Premier of Ontario, Mr. David Peterson, said:
You don't call it a cut. You could call it a breach of faith-You have not solved the National problem . . . You are only transferring that National problem to us.
The Treasurer of Ontario, Mr. Robert Nixon, said:
There was uniform opposition to Ottawa's plan . .. Nobody thought it was a good idea.
I could go on and quote various provincial Ministers and Premiers who are basically and philosophically opposed to this move. However, I will not.
As a federal Member of Parliament I think this piece of legislation and the cuts we are seeing in the areas of health and education really assist in defining what it means to be a Conservative in this Government and in this country. It really defines, on philosophical grounds, where the Government is coming from and where it wishes to go. I think we can measure
May 5, 1986

how progressive and compassionate a society is when we measure how it treats its sick, elderly and its future resources, namely, youth.
In talking about cut-backs let me say that there are a great many Canadians who hope that their Governments will be prudent in terms of spending their tax dollars. In the end, our primary responsibility here in this Chamber is to ensure that the monies collected from Canadians are properly channelled and used in a fiscally responsible manner. However, when one talks to average Canadians, as I have done in my own constituency and across the country, one finds that two areas in which they are not prepared to sacrifice are the very areas in which the Government proposes to cut back. There is health on the one hand and education on the other. In dealing with these two subjects we see an indication of how the Government is treating its seniors, its sick and its disabled on the one hand and, on the other, how it treats its young people vis-d-vis their education.
We have heard in the Chamber speech after speech stating that medicare is a tribute to its great traditions. We have heard about how important it is to support technological training and to educate our young people. It is not important for every Canadian to come out of school with a BA, an MA or a PhD from one of the local universities, but it is important that there be no stigma attached to the individual who wishes to pursue academic excellence vis-a-vis college and come out with a trade of which he or she can be proud.
We are talking about crucial elements here today. In Ontario, we will not have $3 billion at our disposal to ensure that the level of medical health care enjoyed in our province throughout the years will be maintained. In Ontario, we will have $3 billion less to secure better education and, therefore, a better future for our young citizens. They may be young today but, God willing, tomorrow they will be our leaders, whether it be in the business community, the social service community or in the politcal community. When we talk about robbing billions and billions of dollars from our provincial Governments, we are talking about a serious, fundamental matter which goes to the core of what our country is all about.
If the Government were to say that it is cutting back because it is supposed to cut back, then obviously that would be a constitutional issue. Citizens would at least be reassured that those monies would be channelled in those directions in the end. When we have citizens who will not be able to enjoy those funds in terms of health care or education then they are not pleased. This is why we are rising in our places today to demonstrate and articulate these concerns. We are doing so in order to make the Government aware of these aspirations in the eleventh hour.
We should not consider this piece of legislation in isolation. I think it puts forward a continuity with respect to programs and policies which demonstrate just where the interests of the Government lie. It is prepared to bail out the banks, no questions asked. It is prepared to come to the House and say to members of the Opposition: "You sign a blank cheque. Don't
Federal- Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
worry about it. We know how to deal with it". Yet in the same breath it comes before the House and tries to deindex the pensions of senior citizens. The Government is prepared to give a capital gains bonanza of $500,000, yet it is prepared to deindex baby bonuses. It is prepared to ask those who earn $200,000 annually to pay a cumulative tax of only 2 per cent in five years while asking those who earn $15,000 annually to face a 36 per cent increase in taxes by 1990.
After illustrating those individual cases and analysing the philosophical bent that characterizes these policy thrusts, it comes as no surprise that the Government is asking for, and will obtain because of its majority, cuts to health care and post-secondary education that will have a tremendous impact. In speech after speech, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has talked about today's youth, tomorrow's leaders, today's ill and tomorrow's old. If there is any sincerity and integrity in those words, those press releases and those policy statements, then the Government will withdraw Bill C-96 because the legislation is immoral. It lacks integrity and it lacks the vision and compassion necessary to protect Canadians through health care and post-secondary education services. Canadians know where the Government is going. It is important, however, that the Government learn where Canadians are going to go in 1988.


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, when we consider Bill C-96 before the House today, which has as one of its avowed objectives to reduce the deficit, we cannot ignore certain other factors that are also part and parcel of the Government's effort to reduce the deficit. Today is May 5, just five days after the deadline for Canadian taxpayers to file their income tax returns with the federal Government. You yourself may have noticed, Mr.Speaker, as have most Canadian citizens, that this year we are paying more income tax.
In fact, in his last two Budgets, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and with him the entire Conservative Government, managed to take some $12.5 billion extra out of our pockets.
This is part of their attack on the deficit, but what really bothers me is how they go about it, because if we take the case of low-income Canadians, we realize that they are the ones who are getting the worst deal. A family with an annual income of $15,000 will be paying 23 per cent more in income tax to the federal Government as a result of these two last Budgets. However, a taxpayer who has the honour and the privilege of having an annual income of around $100,000, will pay only 1 per cent more income tax. This means that the Conservative Government's measures to reduce the deficit are putting the greatest burden on those who are already being squeezed and giving a better chance to those who are already well-off.
This Government, which in its frenzy to reduce the deficit is bearing down most heavily on low-income Canadians, is doing
12960

May 5, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
the same thing at the provincial level, and that is where Bill C-96 comes in, because here we see the provinces that are least well-off getting the worst deal.
Bill C-96, which amends the agreements on federal contributions for post-secondary education and health care will make it possible for the federal Government to reduce substantially the amounts it transfers to the provinces, which means a reduction of about $8 billion over a six-year period. This is not exactly peanuts, Mr. Speaker. For instance, my own province, the province of Quebec, will lose a little over $2 billion over that same period.
In the case of Ontario it is almost $3 billion. Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic region is experiencing hardships and has the highest unemployment level in Canada, yet it will have to cope with cutbacks in excess of $700 million. People in the Atlantic region are not stupid. Think of the unmistakable message the residents of Prince Edward Island have just delivered to the Conservative Party. It was turfed out, thrown out of office in the province, and I am sure Bill C-96 of the federal Government had something to do with this latest decision made by the people of Prince Edward Island. As to western Canada, well that region will lose close to $2 billion over the next six months.
So, Mr. Speaker, the provinces unanimously condemned and denounced these unfair cutbacks, particularly because they were made without real consultation, as the provinces point out. I do not really expect the Government to take my word for it. I am going to quote the Quebec Minister of Finance, the province I represent here in the House. Mr. Speaker, this was published in the Journal de Montreal of May 2, barely three days ago:
Last night Quebec Finance Minister Gerard D. Levesque accused the Canadian Government of unilaterally-
-unilaterally. It proves what I just said, there was no real consultation. As he was saying:
-of unilaterally changing the provincial Fiscal transfer mechanisms.
And I quote the minister directly:
It is like a vice closing progressively on the public finances of Quebec- "another step toward a federal withdrawal from the financing of essential services-
This is how a provincial Finance Minister has reacted to this Bill, and he was the first to say that this Bill was imposed unilaterally. Mr. Speaker, it is to this that we object the most, because this measure is not only hard, but it is also being imposed on the provinces without their consent.
How will the provinces react to such substantial cutbacks in their finances? I have the impression that their only option will be to reduce their services.
How can this be done in the case of hospital services? As we know, certain provinces have been looking at user-fees for some time, and several of them will probably have to charge user-fees to make up for the shortfall of $8 billion during the next six years, and these additional costs will be charged to people whose taxes have just been substantially increased by $12.5 billion over two years, as I said earlier. If the provinces do not charge user-fees, what will they do? In some cases, they will
certainly postpone the purchase of new equipment, such as modern X-ray machines or other things they may need.
Elsewhere, the number of beds available in hospitals may have to be reduced because of the cutbacks forced on the hospitals by the provinces when they transfer the costs imposed on them by the federal Government, or else it might be the lineups in the emergency rooms which will grow longer. Of course, emergency room line-ups are already quite long enough without them growing any longer, at least in my own province. For my part, I maintain that the cutbacks of $2 billion which Quebec will have to absord within a few years can only cause further deterioration of hospital services in our province.
Moreover, what I find strange is that this remedy is being administered by a political party which was saying just the opposite not so long ago. You must recall, Mr. Speaker, the famous Sherbrooke caucus held shortly before the 1984 federal elections. That was already a very well known caucus meeting. For instance, it was the caucus meeting during which the Conservative Party promised to maintain indexation of Old Age Security pensions. Let me recall what came afterwards, when the Minister of Finance came up with proposals to do the exact opposite, proposals that were aimed at deindexing Old Age Security pensions. And we know that senior citizens all across Canada were forced to rise and organize demonstrations right up to Parliament Hill, asking the Conservative Party and the present Prime Minister to honour their commitment.
Well, concerning financial support to hospital services, let me refer for instance to one of the commitments made in Sherbrooke by the Conservative Members' caucus. In addition to maintaining Old Age Security pensions, they were committed to honouring the federal obligation-this is how they called it, the obligation-to support provincial health care services and to provide extra funds. Not a word was said about cuts at that point. They talked about increasing the payments that would be transferred to the provinces.
How hard it does seem to the Conservative Party to be true to their word once they have promised something!
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me make a few comments-I know I have some time left-on another area where cuts will hurt very badly. I am referring to post-secondary education. I must comment on that, because in my constituency I have three universities: McGill University, Concordia University and the Universite du Quebec a Montreal. There is no need then to talk about the number of representations I received against Bill C-96. At a point in time where we speak of the importance of education in a technological society, the urgent need to improve our competitive position, especially in the face of free trade and negotiations with the United States, how does the Government expect to reach its goals if it cuts down on the funds intended for college and university education? It makes no sense, Mr. Speaker. That is not the place where to make cuts, at a time when students have difficulty finding summer jobs to pay for their education, at a point where parents have
May 5, 1986

already their available income reduced by increased taxes, because they will then be forcing universities to increase tuition fees. Thousands of students in my constituency are especially concerned about that. They ask me to point out to Parliament that it is not the proper time to increase school fees because many of them with slender means will thus be unable to attend university.
If I had more time at my disposal, Mr. Speaker, I could carry on, but since I have only a few minutes left, I should like to explain to Canadians through you why I will be unable to vote for Bill C-96.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to rise to state why I believe the House must oppose Bill C-96. Let us recognize that the cut-backs in question, the cut-backs to be created by the Bill, will have considerable impact upon all provinces. We are talking about cut-backs which by 1991-92 will amount to some $8 billion. We are talking about cut-backs which will amount over the entire period to $187.7 million for Newfoundland, $40.8 million for Prince Edward Island, $282.6 million for Nova Scotia, $228.8 for New Brunswick, $340.4 million for Manitoba, $332.5 million for Saskatchewan, $773.1 million for Alberta, and $934.3 million for British Columbia

and for Quebec, a cut of over $2 billion while for the same period, the cut for Ontario would reach almost $3 billion.

The cut for the Province of Ontario alone will amount to almost $3 billion. What we are talking about here is a transfer by the federal Government of its deficit to the provinces. We are also talking about how the Government has acted unilaterally, without the consent of the provinces, and has failed to respect the tradition of federal-provincial agreements.
When the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Conservative Party were campaigning for office, they said that they would bring into effect, if they became the Government, a new era of federal-provincial consultation, a new era of harmony between the provinces and the federal Government.


An Hon. Member:: They delivered.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I heard someone say: "They delivered". They delivered chaos, concern, and fear. If there was any harmony, it was harmony on the part of the provincial Premiers and the provincial Governments which unanimously agreed that the federal Government betrayed them and let them down. Let us have the facts. For example, Richard Hatfield, Premier of New Brunswick said:

We will have no other choice but to increase extra billing for health services.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act [English]
John Baxter, New Brunswick Finance Minister, said the following:
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, Nova Scotia Finance Minister, had the following to say when he was referring to a federal-provincial meeting:
Every province in there made it clear that there's probably nothing more important to deliver to Canadians than health and education.
He added:
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.
We are talking here about people who are friends of the Government. If that is what they are saying, we can imagine what the leaders of provincial Governments who are skeptical about the Government have in fact been saying on the same issue. For example, Robert Nixon, Ontario Treasurer, described the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) as intransigent. In referring to all provincial Finance Ministers, he said that "there was uniform opposition to Ottawa's plan and that nobody thought it was a good idea". Next I will quote the Minister of Finance for the Province of Quebec.

The Minister of Finance for Quebec, Mr. Gerard-D. Levesque, has reminded Ottawa that the provinces generally had reacted with great discipline and moderation as far as the control of expenditures were concerned.
In his recent Budget, a few days ago. Mr. Levesque said that as a result of broken promises, of unfulfilled commitments by the Conservative Government which had promised Quebec a sum of $248 million, he had to introduce a sterner budget which would have been unnecessary if that Tory Government had kept its promise.

As a result of the cuts totalling $8 billion by 1991-92, the provinces will be forced to increase their taxes, to increase their deficits, or to rethink their priorities and cut back their services accordingly, or to increase fees paid by individual Canadians. Whatever the method adopted, the taxpayer will bear the cost of the cut-backs without there being any benefit accruing to the public.
The Government, in asking the House to approve a cut-back or a reduction of some $8 billion in transfer payments to the provinces by 1991-92, is saying to the provinces in the area of health care: "We the Conservative Government want you to cut the number of hospital beds and emergency departments". Through this Bill the Conservative Government is saying that it wants them to cut health care for senior citizens and programs of medical research. If we look at the area of education, through this piece of bad legislation the Conservative Government is telling the provinces to close universities, to cut university research, to close professional schools, and to

May 5, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
close computer and high technology departments in universities and community colleges. This Conservative Government through this Bill is telling the provinces to close agricultural research programs and to increase tuition fees generally in our post-secondary institutions. This is the wrong message that the Conservative Government is giving to the provinces through this legislation.
It contradicts totally the promises the Conservatives made during the last election campaign. I know it is not news any more to cite another broken Conservative election promise. You can say: "What's new about that? What is different about that?" It is important to recognize that in breaking this promise to the provinces and the Canadian people, the Government is telling the provinces to cut needed services to individual and lower-income Canadians.
At a meeting held in Sherbrooke on July 26, 1984, the Conservative Party promised to:
-respect the federal obligation to fund provincial health care through Established Programs Financing, and make additional funds available to the provinces on a cost-shared basis for the establishment or enrichment of programs deemed most likely to improve the general level and limit long-term costs. This determination to be made following a national conference of health Ministers and health care professionals.
It is obvious through this legislation that the Conservative Government has not kept that promise. The Conservative Party committed itself to increase R and D expenditures to 2.5 per cent of GNP as compared to 1.17 per cent in 1981. The Conservative Party said:
Our research and development commitment is fundamental to our over-all programs for economic and social development. We are committed to doubling Canada's R and D budget to 2.5 per cent of GNP.
The Conservative Government has already broken that promise through cut-backs as a result of the last two Budgets. The Government is underscoring the way it broke that promise through cut-backs in support for universities as a result of this bad piece of legislation.
Again I say, what is new about another broken Conservative promise? There have been so many already, but this is one of the most serious. Through this legislation Conservatives are hitting health care, something fundamental to this country. They are also hitting education, something fundamental to this country. They are imposing permanent damage on the country and the people. This bad Bill must be defeated, Mr. Speaker.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise to deal with this Bill, not with much pleasure, but in order to put on the official record of our debates in the House some opinions and views that I would like to elaborate on.
Because the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) who has spoken before me has provided a fairly complete overview of the facts, I shall refrain from repeating the arguments he has put forward, namely, that the Government has failed to consult the provinces before making its decision, that under the circumstances it is acting not only arbitrarily, but also with a complete lack of sensitivity for the greatest needs of today, namely, education and health care.
I wish to indicate simply that I support the views of my colleague, that we will vote against this Bill and that, when the time comes, we will stand up against this initiative aimed at considerably reducing the amounts of money which the provinces expected and were entitled to receive.
Mr. Speaker, the Government proposes to reduce the growth rate of its contribution to Established Programs Financing. The total reduction in cash transfers and fiscal percentage points could amount to about S8.133 billion for Canada as a whole.
For my own province of Ontario, it will be almost $3 billion, more precisely $2,929 billion. We cannot help wondering where the provincial Governments will find the money to finance their essential programs in the areas of health and education. In fact, as a result of these cutbacks, the provinces will either have to raise their taxes or increase their deficit, and give us the same lame excuse this Government has given us, namely that they have to do it to reduce the deficit. Oh, the Government is doing it, if that is what it wants, but it is doing it at the expense of the provinces. It is doing it by tranferring the federal deficit to the provinces.
I think the whole procedure is less than fair and certainly does not meet with the approval of the general public.
Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague from Windsor West (Mr. Gray) said earlier, this Government has acted without consulting the provinces and without their consent. It has failed to respect the tradition of federal-provincial arrangements, arrangements this Government had sworn to strengthen and abide by, while promising practically continuous consultation.
Mr. Speaker, we have here a striking example of a government that, as I said earlier, is insensitive to the needs of the provinces and has no scruples about breaking its word and then saying it is for the good of Canadians. This is a deficit that is going to be reduced to a federal deficit, as someone said earlier.
Mr. Speaker, in the course of debate I heard several Members of the New Democratic Party say that the Liberals did the same thing during the 6-and 5-period, and that we had cut payments for post-secondary education and education financing. It is true that during the 6-and 5-period, we cut financing for post-secondary education. And Hon. Members are aware that this represents about 27 or 28 per cent of total transfer payments to the provinces for health care and education, in other words, Established Programs Financing.
Mr. Speaker, the remaining 71 per cent relate to health programs. We should not forget that the 6-and-5 program was for only two years, whereas the thrust of Bill C-96 which is now under consideration will make the cutbacks permanent. It will have a very negative and severe impact on the future of our health and education services. We know that the number of college and university students has risen rather sharply this year. We know that the demand for hospital beds in Canada is on the increase. This week I wrote a letter in support of a request made by the Elisabeth-Bruyere health centre, a letter addressed to Sister Gilberte Paquette and dated April 29, not so long ago, in which I told her I had learned of her request with great interest. Mr. Speaker, it is a request for 70 additional nursing home beds. One thing we can readily appreciate in that respect is that we do not have French nursing care services here

in Ottawa, and I would suggest this is an altogether normal request from a well known health centre like Elisabeth-Bruyere. But what is happening, Mr. Speaker, is that because of these reduced payments to the provinces, particularly health services payments, the Elisabeth-Bruyere health centre is probably in a precarious position where it will not be getting the funds required to provide these 70 beds and serve people who urgently need financial assistance.
Mr. Speaker, under the old formula, the federal contribution for each province was equal to a yearly per capita amount indexed each year to the per capita Gross National Product multiplied by the population of the province. This is how we can evaluate the impact of Established Programs Financing.
The new legislation provides that this per capita amount will be indexed to the per capita GNP minus 2 p. 100.
This, Mr. Speaker, is where we do not agree with the Government, and we have said so many times, because it is unfair to do such a thing without consulting the provinces and without hearing the views of those concerned to find out the needs of the provinces and the users of these services.
Mr. Speaker, God knows that the Conservatives promised during the electoral campaign to keep to the Established Programs Financing Agreements, but this is just one of many broken promises. Whether we are speaking about pension indexing, Established Programs Financing or Government programs, everything has been left in suspense and it is impossible to know where we are going. This is a Government of indecision. This Government prefers to act alone. This Government acts before it consults. We have a Government which objects to certain things which I, at least, find essential in health care, because by objecting to a reasonable growth in Established Programs Financing, the Government is also objecting to an increase in the number of hospital beds, to improved post-secondary education and to reasonable and continuing access to these programs.
Mr. Speaker, as I said at the beginning, this Government is simply transferring its deficit to the provinces and the only reason it has given to justify this cutback is that all Canadians and all provinces must make an effort to reduce the federal deficit.
Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, and I shall close with this comment, the Government has acted unilaterally without the consent of the provinces and has not respected the tradition of federal-provincial agreements. We shall be voting against this Bill, Mr. Speaker, and we will resume this discussion in committee or when the Bill is in committee.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
[DOT]	(1730)


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the amendment of Mr. Murphy:
That the motion be amended by deleting all 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 Contributions Act, 1977, be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time six months hence."
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.



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, as you well know, Canadians of Greek origin are extremely concerned about the fact that the Canadian Government intends to transfer CF-104 fighter aircraft to Turkey. It is bad enough from the perspective of Canadians of Greek origin that their former homeland was dominated and occupied for some 350 years by Turkey. It is bad enough that a few years ago the Defence Minister of Turkey quite openly indicated that Turkey claimed the Greek Aegean island as its own. It is bad enough that in 1974 some 40,000 Turkish troops invaded Cyprus and drove the Greek-Cypriot community into the southern part of the island. Since that time, thousands of Greek-Cypriots have been missing and unaccounted for.
As well, it is bad enough that Amnesty International continually condemns the activities of Turkey. It is bad enough that Turkey, as one of the NATO allies, has refused to take part in NATO exercises when Greece is involved. All of these things are bad enough.
On top of that, Canadians of Greek origin have invested their tax dollars in CF-104 fighter aircraft. This situation is somewhat akin to one which could have developed in 1939 if the Canadian Government of the time had decided to transfer military equipment to the Government of Nazi Germany on the verge of the German invasion of Europe. When one considers all of those things, I think it is understandable that Canadians of Greek origin are modestly upset, to say the least.
The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen) has quite properly explained and pointed out that in 1976, all of the NATO countries, including Canada, Greece and Turkey, came to an agreement whereby surplus military equipment was to be transferred free of cost to Greece, to Turkey or to any other NATO ally if it was so requested. The Minister of National Defence explained as well that when Canada decided to replace its CF-104 fighter aircraft with new CF-18 aircraft, Canada offered its old fighter aircraft to all of its NATO allies and particularly to Turkey and Greece. The Minister pointed out as well that Turkey made a request to have those aircraft transferred, but Greece did not. He stated that later, Canada informed all of its allies of Turkey's claim to these aircraft and at that time, Greece made no response.
In 1982, after the offer had been made, Turkey had accepted it and Greece had not responded, the then Minister of National Defence under the former Liberal Government, the Hon. Gilles Lamontagne, made a commitment in principle to transfer the CF-104 aircraft to Turkey. Later, that commitment in principle was confirmed by another former Liberal Minister of National Defence, the Hon. Jean-Jacques Blais. Then in July 1982, for the very first time Greece requested the Canadian Government to transfer CF-104 aircraft and spare parts to it as well as to Turkey.
It was said by the present Minister of National Defence that we made a commitment to Greece at that time that we would transfer an equal amount of military equipment to Greece as was being transferred to Turkey and on the same terms as we were transferring it to Turkey. Those terms were that the equipment could not be used against another NATO ally and that it would be transferred in an "as-is" condition. There would not be any money spent to upgrade the equipment or improve it or do anything at all to make sure that it was in better condition when it was transferred than it was when it was being used by our own forces. On April 25 of this year, the Ottawa Citizen reported that the Department of National Defence was now combing its inventories for spare parts and for air frames for CF-104 aircraft to give to Greece in order to fulfil its commitment.
I would like to know tonight from the Parliamentary Secretary first to what extent we have now transferred CF-104 aircraft to Turkey and how many more remain untransferred to date. I would like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary whether any Canadian taxpayers' money was spent on upgrading those aircraft when they were transferred to Turkey. I would also like to know whether there is any
May 5, 1986

intention of spending any other Canadian taxpayers' dollars on upgrading those aircraft transferred to Turkey. I would like to know how much in the way of military equipment we have transferred so far to Greece in order to fulfil our commitment to Greece. As well, I would like to know exactly what kinds and how much additional military equipment we intend to transfer to Greece in order to fulfil our commitment to Greece subsequent to our commitment to Turkey.
Finally, I want to know from the Parliamentary Secretary if Canada has made a decision on whether or not we will be building a CANDU nuclear reactor for Turkey, whether or not the project will be proceeded with and, if it is, whether we intend to do something similar for Greece. I am looking forward to the answers of the Parliamentary Secretary tonight.


Mr. Bud Bradley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, the interest of the Hon. Member in this matter is appreciated. I welcome the opportunity to clarify some of the background for him. However, the Hon. Member has introduced a series of additional questions which I find extremely interesting and extremely detailed. I am sure he is aware that I would not have that information at my fingertips at the moment. They do not quite relate to the question at point, but I will refer those matters to the Minister and see what information we can get for him.
I think the Hon. Member is familiar with the policy of NATO countries with regard to military equipment which is being replaced, that is, it is offered to all alliance members. However, in the last few years NATO has placed greater emphasis upon supplying military assistance to Greece, Portugal, and Turkey. All requests are considered. As the Hon. Member knows, this was the process Canada followed once it became known that the CF-104 Starfighters would be phased out of service and replaced by our new CF-18s. In response to our offer of these CF-104 Starfighters, Turkey inquired and ultimately requested aircraft and spare parts. This request was considered, and the Government agreed to it.
The Hon. Member is aware of how important the southern flank of NATO is to the alliance, and I am sure he will recall the Minister's response in the House that these aircraft were offered under the condition that they be used by Turkey to bolster its NATO role in that very important area.
To respond more directly to the Hon. Member's concern about the transfer of aircraft to an important ally, I should like to repeat part of what the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Andre) said on December 17 in the House:
-these aircraft will be based in the southeastern part of Turkey, that is, near the Turkey-Iran border, and that they will be nowhere near the Turkey-Greece border of Cyprus.
I hope that helps the Hon. Member. As I pointed out, I will take note of the new questions which he raised this evening and try to obtain responses.
Adjournment Debate


AIR SAFETY-ARCTIC AIRPORTS PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR REINSTATEMENT
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, on April 25, I asked a question of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) concerning the reinstatement of the Arctic airports program. The Minister's reply was sympathetic because it reflected the personal concern which I know him to have with regard to the matter. However, it was not a committal. I can understand that too because I know the financial constraints under which the Minister operates.
I should like to take this opportunity to argue again in favour of the reinstatement of the Arctic airports program. First I should like to quote from report No. 83-W30065 of the Canadian Aviation Safety Board which dealt with a fatality that took place at Paulatuk in the winter of 1983. The Canadian Aviation Safety Board has seen, as a result of investigating several aircraft accidents in the North with fatalities, that there is an underlying contributory cause. It found as follows:
The Board notes that many northern landing strips are rudimentary and have been developed with only local resources. In a 1978 Memorandum of Understanding between several federal Government Departments and the Governments of the Territories, standards for the identification and upgrading of northern aviation facilities were prescribed. The MOU expired in March 1983, at which time there were a number of facilities which had been identified as qualifying for upgrading or replacement, but for which implementation of the project had not been completed.
The report goes on:
The CASB is concerned that the inadequacy of aviation facilities at many Arctic community aerodromes may be compromising aviation safety in northern operations. Therefore, the Board is reviewing the circumstances from recent occurrences at such aerodromes with a view to possibly making formal recommendations regarding the requirement to re-identify substandard facilities and to develop a program to upgrade or replace any safety deficient facilities.
I would certainly encourage the Board to do just that. Just about everyone in the North is united that the program be completed because they share a common danger. They have to fly into these places. All three federally represented political Parties are in agreement. It does not matter whether it is the association of municipalities, the Chamber of Commerce or native organizations, they too are all of one mind. Several motions have been passed in the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories urging both the territorial and federal Governments to get their act together and reinstate this program.
The program was very successful during the period it was in operation. It was deeply appreciated by the people in various communities that now have good basic standard airstrips. You could think of places like Aklavik, Fort McPherson, Fort Norman and Fort Liard. It should be noted that some of these locations are on the road network, but there are other places sadly lacking in facilities and in need of proper upgrading.
Fort Franklin had a recent fatality and has been waiting for some time to get a proper airstrip. It is a community serviced exclusively by air. There is no road there at all. The airports at

May 5, 1986
Adjournment Debate
Rae Lakes and at Lac La Matre are in very poor shape. Something has to be done pretty quickly or we will have a Fort Franklin type disaster in the near future. Fort Good Hope is another example of a strip that needs to be upgraded.
My pitch today, Mr. Speaker, is that we get together, the federal Government, its various Departments-it might be Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Transport, Defence, anybody who is involved-and the territorial government. Let us have a concerted effort to finish the job that got cut off in mid stream in 1983. This would be a worthwhile use of public funds and do much to increase aviation safety in the part of Canada that I have the honour to represent.


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I want you to know that we are very impressed by your versatility and clean-shavedness. In response to the Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson), I would like to say that we are all struck by his familiarity with the difficulties historically experienced by people who attempt to travel in the North. They constantly face dangers in attempting to go from place to place. Many of us who come from more densely populated areas, such as southwestern Ontario where my riding is, do not realize how many difficulties are faced by people in our northern communities. He has brought that concern forward very clearly.
As the Member mentioned, the program which Finished in 1983 expended between $65 million and $70 million up until that time. That program resulted in the completion of eight airports in Yukon and 30 airports in the Northwest Territories, which was a very major effort. Having done that, in March of 1983 nine communities remained isolated in terms of the criteria that were used to establish those other airports. That is not to say, however, that all funding had been stopped. Indeed, $10.6 million in additional funds have been spent through the operating and maintenance resources to upgrade facilities in many of those places. There has, therefore, been a significant contribution since September of 1984 in spite of the original program being terminated at the end of 1983.
1 will very quickly mention several other initiatives that have been undertaken which I think have contributed to safe air travel in the north. One of them is the weather improvement program which was funded by Transport Canada and continued to improve the quality of weather service in northern Canada. It is largely completed now and under that program, which will cost approximately $ 11 million, there is a CBC program dedicated to aviation weather broadcast each weekday morning. That may be one of the few non-biased CBC reports we get each day. As well, satellite weather photos are now available at Yellowknife, White Horse, Resolute Bay, Inuvik, and Frobisher Bay on a regular basis. In addition, Transport Canada, in conjunction with the Atmospheric Environment Service, is promoting the research and development of automatic weather reporting devices.
The program which the Member has asked to have reinstituted is now being reconsidered by the Minister, who is actively discussing it with his Cabinet colleagues. I am sure that he will be interested in the specific proposal suggested by the Member.


SOCIAL SECURITY-PREOCCUPATION OF WOMEN CONCERNING SOCIAL PROGRAMS. (B) NATIONAL ACTION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, the question which I want to pursue at this time is with regard to the review of social programs which the Conservative Government has undertaken, and particularly women's concerns with these programs. I am concerned about whether or not the review will be open, whether women's organizations will be consulted, and whether the review will include the possibility of improvement in the social programs rather than just cut-backs.
The response I received from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) was not very encouraging on this score. He made no mention as to the possibility of improvement in the social programs. One worries that "review" is simply a euphemism for "anticipated cut-backs". He certainly was in favour of openness. He said that the request for specific funding for women's organizations to take part in this review process would be given respectful consideration. However, he did not say anything stronger than that.
Since those remarks were made, other things have happened. Women's organizations have had a tougher time getting funding at all. In fact, major organizations have not received funding for this year, let alone extra funding to hire staff to prepare briefs and analyses in order to take part in the review process. We must worry about this participation. Women's organizations are getting some feedback from the Department which indicates that the review process will not be an open one, and they are extremely concerned about that.
I want to spend a few minutes specifically discussing funding for women's organizations. The idea that these organizations should have to present an application to the Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard) in order to lobby is something many organizations are very concerned about. There is no recognition of the fact that volunteer organizations are performing a vital role for Canada and they need and are entitled to this funding.
Volunteers do an enormous amount of work. Sometimes they are given far too much work to do and they need more, better and predictable funding. It might be too tempting for the Government to simply cut off the funding of these organizations. In the short run, it would be correct that these organizations would be quieter. They would not have the money to lobby. Ultimately, however, I think they would find ways to fight back.
May 5, 1986

We need better ways of funding these organizations. We have to recognize it as a matter of right and not use the state as an agency which receives applications and decides which organization will get money or not. The people should make this decision. This could be done as people fill out their tax returns. A special amount could be allocated to taxpayers, indeed to homemakers who are not taxpayers because we would certainly want all adult citizens included, so they can allocate a certain amount of their tax money to the voluntary sector to support the organizations they believe represent their interests. That would be a far better way of handling this, and we certainly want to see the amounts improved as well.
On the issue of social programs themselves, women's organizations and women in general have been strong advocates of a good social security system and universality. We should not be surprised by this because women are even more dependent than men for support on our universal programs at different times of their lives. By and large, women look after the health of the family. Women pick up the pieces when other members of the family have problems. The law of the jungle operates since it is women who have to tend to the wounded. They are much more sensitive to the need for well functioning health care, family allowance, child support and pension programs. Of course, women are much less likely to get private pensions and are therefore much more dependent on public pensions. In this respect, women are much less ideological and more practical than men. If the private sector is not doing the job, they are quite prepared to turn to the Government to see it done. They want action. In the matter of child care, the private sector has been abysmally lacking in the provision of adequate, quality, affordable child care. Women's organizations then turn to Government for action. They want their tax dollars devoted to this important matter of raising children adequately to see that they grow up well. Even in a time of restraint, they are very practical. They say this is a high priority for us and we want to see some action.
Social programs in Canada are not generous by international standards. Canada is ninth out of 12 among OECD countries in its support of social programs. A little less on pensions, I am sorry to say; but average in health and education, and above average on unemployment insurance. This is not because we are more generous in our benefits, but because we have so much unemployment. There has been an erosion in these programs. The family allowance used to pay more in real terms. The old age pension has been allowed to erode. Of course, unemployment insurance has been cut back. Women want to stop this erosion and see that the social security system meets current needs. This situation has developed because other priorities have been allowed to take over, things such as the funding of corporate giveaways.
Actual expenditures on universal social programs are not nearly as great as people think. For 1986-87, family allowance payments are estimated at $2.53 billion. Old age pensions cost $9.51 billion. Medicare costs $6.8 billion. The Government contribution to umemployment insurance is $2.68 billion. As
Adjournment Debate
well, the old age pension and family allowance are also taxed back. We are talking here about expenditures of $107 billion. Corporate give-aways are in the order of $30 billion to $50 billions.
The interest paid to Canadians who have enough money to loan to the Government on our public debt is in the order of $27 billion. The social programs are not taking up as much money as people think. It is a very serious mistake of the Government to suggest that we have to look to cut-backs in the social programs instead of other areas of expenditure. The social programs are vital for Canada and we should be looking in other areas to save money. We should improve the social programs which provide a safety net for Canadians that is very badly needed.


Mrs. Monique Landry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) for her interest in the social programs specifically directed at women.
I would like to take this opportunity to define the principles on which the Government has based its review of social expenditures and the related fiscal provisions announced in the 1986 Budget. As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) announced in his speech, all the measures that will be taken will serve to maintain the universality of social programs, will result in additional resources being directed at the people who need them most, and also will give individuals the opportunity to become self-sufficient; at the same time, the after-tax benefits going to the most affluent who need them least will be reduced.
This review can be described as the next stage in the social program reform initiated by the Government under the double criteria of social responsibility and financial responsibility. Ever since these criteria were announced, the Government of which I am a Member has continued as it had done since the beginning of its mandate to consult the various groups, governments, provinces, and all the other organizations interested in the dossier.
Now, since coming to power, we have initiated a whole series of changes to social measures directed at several groups, including women. For the benefit of my honourable colleague, 1 should like to mention the spouse's allowance which is now granted to all widows and widowers between 60 and 64 years of age, as well as the very important measure which has modified family allowances, again to direct our resources to the most needy families. On the other hand, the principle of universality has always been preserved. Those two measures are especially aimed at women, as we know.
The Government is also proud of the steps it has taken to improve pensions for Canadian women. Women in the labour force will benefit from Government proposals to extend

May 5, 1986
Adjournment Debate
pension plan portability and thereby make them more accessible. Moreover, in order to correct existing discrepancies in the current pension system, of which contributors' spouses are the main victims, and these are mostly women as we know, the Government has taken a number of steps towards pension reform.
For instance, the surviving spouse's pensions will no longer be terminated following a remarriage.
In pension plans, those benefits will have to be guaranteed to surviving spouses of those plan members who were in retirement at time of death.
The total value of pension earned by the contributor who dies before retirement will have to be rolled over into a frozen registered retirement savings plan in the name of the surviving spouse.
Mr. Speaker, several other provisions concerning pension plans have been enacted, and generally those who benefit are
all women. Those are but a few of our initiatives to help promote social justice and the economic well-being of Canadian women.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that my time is almost up, but I would quite simply like to suggest while concluding that, in my view, the best kind of income security is still job creation, and this Government, in our job-creation programs, has given tremendous help to Canadian women in a most clear and precise way. I therefore feel that we may be proud of our achievements. This Government will go on, in consultation of course with all interested groups.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Redway):: 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 6.41 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, May 6, 1986