1986-05-07

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, last Thursday the Supreme Court of Canada rendered two judgments which substantially reduced the constitutional language rights of French and Englishspeaking Canadians. The court ruled that Section 133 of the Constitution, 1867 gave the state-that is, cities, provinces, and the federal Government-the right to choose the language of a summons or proceeding before a federal and Quebec court, not the citizen who is called to answer before the court. This is a regrettable and illogical judgment. Surely the rights entrenched in Section 133, which allow the use of French or English before the courts, are to benefit individuals, not the state.
As a result of these judgments, a constitutional amendment is required to clarify and restore those rights. I urge the Government to respond positively to this request.

Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Jelinek) thinks that his office has been spoon-feeding ethnocultural organizations which do not contribute to Canada. He declares that from now on grants will be given only to those organizations which are an investment in Canada. The Minister's view of these organizations as weak children unable to feed themselves has aroused resentment in many communities.
Members of the Ukrainian Canadian Development Committee in Edmonton have examined their financial statements and have discovered that federal multicultural funds made up about 1 per cent of their resources. The Ukrainian Canadian Development Committee is only one of many groups which have received very limited funding from Multiculturalism Canada and have been forced to depend on other sources, particularly their own members. These organizations have
invested far more of their own resources into the enhancement of a multicultural Canada than the Ministry of State for Multiculturalism has ever provided them. Their efforts deserve commendation rather than the criticism-


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


EDUCATION
Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's long-cherished role as an international peacekeeper has been eloquently enhanced by the indefatigable and insightful efforts of our present Ambassador to the United Nations, Mr. Stephen Lewis. Consequently, it was with surprise and consternation that I learned of the Ambassador's recent appeal to Canadian educators that so-called "peace activism" be made an indispensable component of high school curricula.
As a former teacher of Canadian history and a school board trustee, I am convinced that a conscientious and objective presentation of premise and fact best equips Canadian young people for analysis and debate, thereby allowing well-informed decision-making on a wide range of crucial issues, including international peacemaking. This is in stark contrast to the Ambassador's call for a "peace-activist" curricula. This myopic approach risks a pedagogy, whose method prejudges the issues and leads to conclusions which verge on uninformed propaganda. Therefore, I urge the ambassador to channel his undoubted capabilities in a manner which better reflect his appointment as Canada's representative-


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


EXTERNAL AID
Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister for External Relations (Mrs. Vezina) announced Operation Africa 2000 in the House yesterday we were all pleased to see that the thrust of the Government's initiative

May 7, 1986
focuses on partnership. For those of us who have lived and worked in Africa we recognize that the Minister has paid the highest tribute to the NGO community in naming them partners in development.

Africa 2000 reflects the lasting commitment of Canadian men and women to promote development in that country. The Government's food and agricultural programs for the next 15 years are long-term priorities.

Canada's continued leadership with the African Drought Assistance Program and other developmental issues in Africa will form an integral part of the upcoming May special session at the United Nations on Africa. We thank all Canadians for their continued support.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, just what is the relationship between this Conservative Government and the Korean Government? How intimate is the relationship between the Industry Minister, the Korean Government, Hyundai and the Hanil Bank? Canadians have a right to know, and it is about time that this Government came clean. The public interest demands it.
Why do so many Conservative Members of Parliament have such a special relationship with the South Korean Government? Why did five Conservative MPs surreptitiously sneak out of Canada to visit Korea at the expense of the Korean Government? What personal interest do they have in Korea?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order. Order, please. The Member knows he is now making a comment about Members and that that is out of order.


John V. Nunziata: I am stating the facts.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan).


PROSTITUTION
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a word about the Government's legislation against street prostitution. I think all Canadians agree that there ought to be laws to prevent street prostitution, but when the Opposition objected to the laws the Government brought in it was because
they were harsh, unfair and they treated prostitutes and their clients as if they were not human beings within Canadian society. Court decisions are now showing that they are human beings and that they must be treated as such.
I want to call upon the Government to rethink those harsh laws to which we objected so strongly, to read the Fraser Report, to bring forward legislation that will work and that will effectively remove street prostitution without treating prostitutes and their jobs like sub-humans.


SUMMER JOBS-GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: On March 23, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) made these discreditable remarks about the Challenge '86 program:
Let us not make use of youth summer job creation programs designed to improve their employment opportunities by enabling them to work in a field related to their chosen career.
This was the Hon. Member's way of belittling young people anxious to find summer jobs as clerks, waiters and waitresses, drug store employees, and so on.
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate to hear a Member of the Opposition discredit the kind of jobs young people can find, knowing as we do the efforts they have made to get summer employment. The Government does not share the views expressed by the NDP Member. We consider that all jobs are rewarding, and we are not in office to depreciate any kind of employment.
We have achieved concrete results in Beauce because the private sector, in co-operation with the Government, has taken a positive approach and created jobs for as many young people as possible. We commend them and wish them happy holidays!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please, the 60 seconds have expired.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to compliment CTV on a program it aired last Sunday night entitled Masters of Deception which exposed the large extent to which the Soviet Union has gone to spread disinformation around the world.
May 7, 1986

Two things are important in terms of Canada. The World Peace Council is a major funding agency for the so-called peace demonstrations around the world. Many well-meaning Canadians, who think they are working for peace when they join the peace councils and march for peace in organizations funded by the World Peace Council, are actually not working for peace as we understand it, but only as the Soviets understand it.
Second, that program made it evidently clear that those who work for peace in an independent way in the Soviet Union do not share the freedom of demonstration which we enjoy in Canada. I want to compliment CTV for the work it has done and to encourage it to do it again.


CANADA-U.S. NEGOTIATIONS-IMPACT ON TECHNOLOGICAL INDUSTRY
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, we have heard much about the need for a level playing field in the trade negotiations and, with it, condemnation of the social, equalization, and other subsidies in Canada that the Americans will challenge. Another side of the coin has been cited by the Science Council.
What concessions will our Government demand and what mechanisms will be in place to equalize the playing field for Canadian technology-based industries so that they can compete with their American counterparts? What greater subsidies do we provide than the massive competitive advantage given to the U.S. high-tech industries by inherently preferential, if not incestuous, defence department expenditures for procurement and research and development? Will Canada insist on excluding much of our high technology industry from free trade negotiations, or will we, in our haste to benefit from the engine of U.S. economic prosperity, be driven to submissive acceptance of U.S. military policy so that we can share its profitable secrets?


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, the Government's program of economic renewal has helped cause lower interest rates and increased business investments. These factors helped stimulate almost 600,000 new jobs in the past 18 months. One-year mortgage rates have dropped to 9.75 per cent, the lowest rate in eight years. This trend of lower
borrowing costs will materially assist home buyers, small business owners, and all consumers who borrow.
New business investment continues to grow. I attended a sod-turning ceremony last week in my riding of Don Valley East. Ikea, the furniture people from Sweden, are building a new store which will open in 1987. It will be Ikea's seventy-sixth store in the world. It will cover 220,000 square meters, over five acres, making it their largest store in North America. Most important, between 150 and 200 new jobs will be created in Don Valley East.


PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Public Service Commission presented its annual report which contains some startling statistics. The report offers little hope that women will be given a better shake in the federal Public Service. Women hold fewer than one-quarter of the thousands of Public Works jobs and only 32 per cent of the over 30,000 civilian positions in National Defence. In the Departments of Transport and the Environment women hold 20 per cent and 27 per cent respectively.
I can go on. Women hold under 8 per cent of the well-paid senior civil service management and executive jobs while they are still the majority in those ghetto jobs, that is, clerical support staff, where they hold 82.7 per cent of the jobs. Furthermore, women only account for 4.8 per cent of those paid $60,000 and over.
The Tories promised fair representation in Government for women but there has been little improvement. When will there be action? Just prior to the next election in the form of token nominations? Certainly not through applying their famous, yet toothless, employment equity Bill, C-62.


DEREGULATION OF CRUDE OIL PRICES-EFFECT ON PRIMARY PRODUCERS
Mr. Pat Binns (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, it is high time that Canada's oil companies dropped the price of bulk fuel to primary producers. Farmers, fishermen, woodlot owners and others who buy in bulk are not benefiting from the Government's policy of deregulating crude oil prices so that the benefits can be passed on to users.
In my Province of Prince Edward Island all fuel comes in the same tankers, is stored in the same tanks, and is delivered in the same trucks. While prices have dropped at the gas pumps for consumers, the same benefits have not been passed

May 7, 1986
Oral Questions
on to primary producers who must buy in bulk. This is a disgrace.
I have written to oil company presidents protesting this injustice and I urge affected producers to do the same. If they want to call me at the House of Commons, I will be happy to provide names and addresses so that they, as well, can join in the protest of this injustice.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Yesterday, in response to a question from my colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell relating to the Minister having benefited from a conflict of interest, he stated categorically that he received no such benefit. My questions to him are these. Does he deny that he received a benefit from a $3 million loan from a Korean bank associated with the Hyundai company? Does he deny that he received a net benefit of $314,000, representing a one year interest-free loan of $2.6 million? Does he deny that he received a benefit from those two sources?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition could modify that question to one dealing with ministerial responsibility.


Some Hon. Members:: It is.


John Napier Turner: This not only relates to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appreciate the seriousness with which the Right Hon. Member takes the matter but I do ask him to bring it into the context of ministerial responsibility-


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, this not only relates to the conflict of interest guidelines but also to the way this Minister is administering his portfolio, subject to outside benefits and conflict of interest. It goes right to his responsibility as a Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: He said in this House he had received no benefit so he is open to questions. I want to put these questions to him because he has opened it up.

Yesterday, the Minister said he had received no such benefit. How does he know he received no benefit if all his
assets were in a blind trust? Who told him? Is he or is he not aware of the negotiations conducted by his wife to protect his assets? How did he know there was no such benefit?


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Member knows that the Chair can only permit questions regarding ministerial responsibility. I am sure he can find a way to put a ministerial question.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, these questions relate to companies doing business with the Minister's Department. They relate to the way he is discharging his obligations. I want to say to you, Sir, having had an opportunity of getting around the country, particularly western Canada, over the last week-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. gentleman is an experienced parliamentarian. He knows the dilemma the Chair is in when questions are put which relate to personal matters. I ask him one more time to put the question in the context of ministerial responsibility, please.


MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITIES
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, what I am asking, and I have to do it through the Deputy Prime Minister in the absence of the Prime Minister, is why will he not let the Minister stand up and clear his name? Canadians are saying that this whole deal smells of corruption.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


John Napier Turner: That it is a cover-up. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister why will he not let his Minister speak or else cut him loose from the Government?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister was answering questions fully yesterday and the day before. The right hon. gentleman was not here to hear the answers. I am certainly not preventing the Minister from standing up. He has been the star of the show for two days in a row.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: He is the star all right. [Translation]


REQUEST FOR DETAILS-ALLEGED BENEFITS TO MINISTER OF REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion himself. Yesterday in the House, in answer to my question about the conflict of interest guidelines, he said that he did not receive, either directly or indirectly, any benefit in excess of $200. Now if the company that had
May 7, 1986

dealings with his Department,-I emphasize "his Department", Mr. Speaker, in order to clarify the connection with this question,-if this company "provided" him, interest-free, with the sum of more than a quarter of a million dollars, what is this supposed to be if it isn't a benefit in excess of $200? It is not exactly peanuts!


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member I would invite him to read, once again, the question he put to me yesterday and then the answer that I gave.


ACTIVITIES OF MINISTER'S WIFE
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question yesterday was very clear. Assuming the Minister did not know of this loan, assuming we believe that, would he deem it appropriate in the future to let his wife negotiate an interest free loan for companies doing business with his Department?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Next question. Order, please. The Hon. Members know the rules about which questions are in order and which are not. Order, please. Does the Hon. Member have a question to the Minister, not about government policy but about his ministerial responsibility?


Don Boudria: Supplementary now, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed again to the Minister concerning his Department. Does he feel it is appropriate that his wife should negotiate such a deal when his Department is involved in granting to the same business that his-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please. The question is to the Minister about his ministerial responsibilities.


DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, seemingly we have to accept your definition of ministerial responsibility. I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Considering the Minister in question said yesterday he did not get a direct benefit from a company doing business with his Department-my question goes to the heart of the conflict of interest issue here-does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that the Minister did get a benefit from the loan negotiated by his wife?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, let us put into sharp accurate focus the question and answer yesterday, which will be found at page 12996 of Hansard. The Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell asked the following question:
Oral Questions
Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question concerns Section 35 of the code. Even if the Minister did not know before, now that we have told him and he knows that he benefited from a company doing business with his Department, has he or does he intend to file a declaration under the benefit Section 35 of the Code which compels him to file when he has received a benefit from a company doing business with his Government? Has he done so, does he intend to do so and, if not, why not?
That, Sir, was the question. The answer by the Minister is the following:
Mr. Speaker, the short answer to that is, I have received no such benefit.


An Hon. Member:: We can read. Let him answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order.


An Hon. Member:: Who are you trying to protect?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East will withdraw that comment which the Speaker just heard her make.


Ms. Copps:: Could you tell me what I am to withdraw?


Mr. Speaker:: Only to say, "I withdraw the comment".


Sheila Maureen Copps: I am not sure what the comment is you are asking me to withdraw?


Mr. Speaker:: The suggestion that the Chair is trying to protect anybody that the Hon. Member just made. The Hon. Member will withdraw that.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I did not suggest that the Chair was to protect anyone, Sir.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is withdrawing that implication and I accept that.


REQUEST FOR MINISTER'S RESIGNATION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that the Deputy Prime Minister is avoiding the most serious questions that go to the root of ministerial responsibility. I want him to answer my question this time. Does he agree that the Minister received a direct benefit as a consequence of the loan negotiated by his wife? If the answer is yes, would he not agree that this is a conflict of interest and the Minister should leave his job?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I answered as I did because the Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell and the Leader of the New Democratic Party distorted the question that was answered yesterday by rephrasing it.


John Edward Broadbent: I am asking a different question.


Erik Nielsen: The Minister said yesterday that he complied not only with Section 35 of the Code but with the entire Code, which I have been saying for a week now.

May 7, 1986
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO GUIDELINES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding what he has just said, and setting aside what I regard to be the inadequacy of his answers, I have a further supplementary question. Considering that the previous Conservative Government of the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead had much more stringent guidelines that were more carefully spelled out, would the Minister agree that if they had been in force we would not be in the mess we are now in? If he agrees with that, why does the Government not bring in those guidelines and toughen them up so we can get on with the business of this country that the people of Canada want?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree that the previous guidelines were more stringent and tougher because the existing guidelines-more accurately, the Code of Conduct-that were tabled on September 9, 1985, are more strict and more stringent. Furthermore, the Prime Minister wrote to the hon. gentleman with respect to his input concerning that Code of Conduct-


John Edward Broadbent: He got my proposal.


Erik Nielsen: The Hon. Member has yet to reply to that letter of September, 1985.


Mr. Cassidy:: That is not true.


Erik Nielsen: If he or any other Member have-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Erik Nielsen: -ideas with respect to improvement, of course they will be considered.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


PRIVATIZATION OF CANADAIR-MINISTER'S ROLE
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the real victim of the Minister's action is public confidence in Government. My question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. It concerns public confidence in the Government in relation to Magna's bid for Canadair. If Magna's bid for Canadair is accepted it will be perceived as a pay-off; if Magna's bid for Canadair is not accepted it will be perceived as being a result of the close relationship between Magna and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure the Hon. Member has a question.


John V. Nunziata: Does the Acting Prime Minister not realize that the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion is unable to carry on his public duty in a manner that is perceived by the public as being fair, objective and above board?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman very cleverly smuggles in two or three
empty hypotheses preceding his question, when he reaches into the future to ask what if something happens.


An Hon. Member:: That is the issue. No confidence in the Government.


Erik Nielsen: I explained last week and again this week the process that is in place for privatization. There are four very distinct steps and we are not even through the first one.


PERFORMANCE OF MINISTERIAL DUTIES
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the industry Minister is drowning in conflict and he knows it. He is showing utter contempt for the anti-corruption guidelines.


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


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, there has to be some integrity to conflict of interest guidelines. My supplementary question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. How can the Minister of Industry carry on his official public duty, having full knowledge of the personal benefits he has received from Hyundai and Magna corporations?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the Minister responded to that kind of question yesterday. I have no problem with my integrity, unlike the hon. gentleman. The Minister for Regional Industrial Expansion does not have any problem with his integrity. The only problem which exists is this constant leap-frogging distortion in which the Hon. Member and his colleagues in the opposition are engaging.


ACTIVITIES OF MINISTER'S SPOUSE-MINISTER'S POSITION
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question is properly directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion in view of the Prime Minister's letter of last September 9 which stated that Ministers have an individual responsibility to prevent conflicts of interest, including those which might arise out of the activities of their spouses. What steps did the Minister take to avoid conflicts of interest involving his spouse last year, and what steps has he taken to eliminate the conflict of interest involving his wife since it became public knowledge last week?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Once again, Mr. Speaker, I can simply assure the Hon. Member, and all Hon. Members of the House, that I have applied the Code of Conduct fully. The blind trust is established and that, as I understand it, is the full purport of the Prime Minister's letter to which the Hon. Member referred.


PRIME MINISTER'S LETTER
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister aware that the Code of Conduct is augmented and
May 7, 1986

supplemented by the letter from the Prime Minister on September 9 last year? In that letter he is enjoined under his individual responsibility to avoid conflict of interest such as the conflict of interest which 25 million Canadians know exist in the case of the loan which his wife arranged with Magna, or through the intervention of Magna's chairman. What steps did the Minister take to avoid that conflict of interest by his spouse, and what action has he taken now since it became public knowledge that that conflict of interest exists?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, that is a repeat of the questions which were put repeatedly last week and this week and it is answered-


Mr. de Jong:: Cover up.


Erik Nielsen: It is not a cover-up at all.


An Hon. Member:: Sure it is.


Douglas Jung: Absolutely.


Erik Nielsen: It is answered-


Douglas Jung: No answer.


Mr. Riis:: No answer.


Erik Nielsen: They don't like the answer, Mr. Speaker-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Nixon lives on in this Chamber.


Erik Nielsen: -but the answer is that the requirement is for the Minister to comply with the Code of Conduct. That is the responsibility of the ADRG who administers-


Mr. Orlikow:: He has no authority.


Erik Nielsen: -the Code. That compliance has been had.


Mr. Gauthier:: How do you know?


Erik Nielsen: The Hon. Member knows that because he has been in touch with the office of the ADRG himself.


CODE OF CONDUCT-CO-OWNER OF FARM
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. In his capacity as Minister he was required to sign a Code to which he put his signature on March 26,1986 which states:
I own a 50 per cent interest in Kings Lynn Farms, Township of King, Regional Municipality of York. While I am subject to the Code, the management of the farm is entirely the responsibility of the co-owner.
Can the Minister tell us who the co-owner is?


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Order.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member realizes, I think, that she is asking a question to the Minister in a personal capacity, not about his responsibilities as a Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Can the Hon. Member find a ministerial question, please.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I am asking about how the Minister has complied in his capacity as a Minister of the Crown. It is only a Minister of the Crown who is required to sign the Code. I believe in that respect it is a perfectly legitimate and applicable question and I would seek an answer from the Government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: -with respect to the Minister's own responsibility as the Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the Hon. Member have a supplementary question about the Minister's responsibility?


REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF MINISTER FROM OFFICE
Sheila Maureen Copps: Is it not true that the co-owner of the Kings Lynn Farms in fact happens to be one and the same Noreen Stevens, the wife of the Minister? In light of the fact that Mrs. Stevens has her finger in more than one business or subsidiary of York Centre, do you not think it's about time to remove the Minister and to make sure that this cloud which is hanging over the whole Mulroney Government is lifted?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, that is an expression of an opinion by the Hon. Member. But she is entitled to hold that opinion. I do not.


Mr. Andre:: My wife owns half of my house, too.


Erik Nielsen: In my responsibility to ensure compliance with the Code of Conduct, I am satisfied that that compliance has been had.


LOAN NEGOTIATED BY MINISTER'S WIFE
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It is quite straightforward. In his opinion, did the Minister, or will the Minister, receive any benefit from the loan which was negotiated by his wife?


Erik Nielsen: My answer to that question, Mr. Speaker, is equally straightforward. The Minister is required, as are all Ministers of the Crown, to comply-


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Come on. Yes or no?

May 7, 1986
Oral Questions


Erik Nielsen: -with the Code of Conduct by a public office holder.


Douglas Jung: Is that what you consider a straight answer?


David Orlikow: Answer the question. What are you afraid of?


Erik Nielsen: It is my responsibility to satisfy myself that it has been discharged. I have taken the necessary steps and compliance has been had.


Mr. Speaker:: A supplementary question.


ACTING PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, can I assume that the Minister's answer, since he deigns not to answer directly, is, yes, the Minister did in fact, and will receive, benefit from the loan negotiated by his wife?


Erik Nielsen: My responsibility, Sir, is to ensure compliance with the Code-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Orlikow: Coward.


Erik Nielsen: -with respect to ministerial compliance.


John Edward Broadbent: Is it the fifth amendment, Erik?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Who believes you?


Douglas Jung: What a sham.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Erik, it's time for you to go, too.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


An Hon. Member:: You're going to sink with Sine.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


RESPONSIBILITY OF ACTING PRIME MINISTER
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. This is about his own competence to ensure compliance with the ministerial responsibility Code. The Acting Prime Minister has a record of standing up and defending the indefensible-


Mr. Crosbie:: Order.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -then backing down and changing his mind.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You premise your questions wrongly.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -the former Minister of National Defence, the former Solicitor General, the former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and himself on the question of wiretapping the Liberal Caucus. So I want to ask him how he can be expected to be taken seriously in his responsibility-


John Carnell Crosbie: Order.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -to make judgments of other Ministers about the applicability of this Code?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, all I can do in response to that question is to observe that we have sunk to new lows in the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: We sure have. Yes, we have.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Carnell Crosbie: Turner's back worse than ever. It's a disgrace. Go back to the hog farm.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


ENFORCEMENT OF CODE OF CONDUCT
Robert Phillip Kaplan: I want to direct my supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. With that kind of track record, should not the responsibility of presiding over the enforcement of that Code be given to some other Minister?


An Hon. Member:: Yes.


Harvie Andre: How can you allow that kind of question from that kind of slimy-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Scumball.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: It's a fact. It's on the record.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Next question.


ACTIVITIES OF MINISTER'S WIFE-COMPLIANCE WITH CODE OF CONDUCT
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, we have asked the question of the Minister and the Acting Prime Minister which goes to the root of the question of whether the Minister's wife and therefore, the Minister, received benefit from this loan transaction. If the Acting Prime Minister is not going to answer and if the Minister is not going to answer, who is it who will respond to that simple, straightforward question?


An Hon. Member:: We have to know.


An Hon. Member:: Ask his wife.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have anwered that question.


John Edward Broadbent: No, you've avoided it.


Erik Nielsen: The Minister has answered a similar question yesterday.

May 7, 1986


John Edward Broadbent: No, you haven't answered it.


Erik Nielsen: My responsibility is to ensure compliance with the Code. I have said that often enough.


Douglas Jung: You haven't exercised your responsibility.


Erik Nielsen: I have also said that I am satisfied that compliance has been had. If the Hon. Member is not prepared to accept that, there is nothing I can do to help him.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the public has a right to know, I believe, an answer to this very simple question, that is, did the Minister through his wife, receive benefit as a result of this loan transaction? The Deputy Prime Minister refuses to answer the question. The Minister himself refuses to answer the question. To whom can we go with this question to obtain a straightforward and simple response?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the assertion in the question of the hon. gentleman is absolutely false. I have continued to answer questions now for seven days in a row on this matter, as has the Minister concerned, as recently as yesterday.


John Edward Broadbent: You're taking the fifth amendment now!


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Deputy Prime Minister. In a previous Question Period the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion indicated that the decision to absolve Hyundai of its obligation to purchase billions of dollars worth of Canadian goods was made by Cabinet. In presenting his recommendations to Cabinet did that Minister declare his conflict of interest? Did he declare to Cabinet that he was the recipient of a loan which was held by a bank in which Hyundai was a major shareholder? Upon receipt of that information what action did the Prime Minister take in order to absolve that Minister of his responsibilities because of that conflict of interest?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has come to a conclusion which I do not share. Quite apart from that, he knows, or should know better than to ask me questions with respect to what goes on or what does not go on in Cabinet
Oral Questions
meetings since traditionally that has not been discussed on the floor of the House.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER DIVEST HIMSELF OF RESPONSIBILITIES RELATING TO HYUNDAI DECISIONS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, in this very crucial case which will cost the country billions of dollars worth of goods, did the Minister declare the fact that he had a basic conflict because he was in receipt of a loan? Knowing now that he was in receipt of a loan-having that knowledge at the present time-is the Deputy Prime Minister now prepared to ask this Minister to absent himself from any responsibilities in making decisions as they relate to Hyundai which are clearly a conflict of interest?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman mixes up, as is his usual fashion, and as seems to be the habit of Members opposite, false premises with questions studded with accusations. I do not share his convictions.


David Orlikow: You wouldn't admit it if you did share them.


Erik Nielsen: I am satisfied that the answers of the Minister yesterday with respect to the so-called hundreds of millions of dollars of loss to Canada gave adequate explanation. The Hon. Member may choose not to believe that those figures are inaccurate-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


David Orlikow: Time to quit, Erik!


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The public has the right to know what is going on with regard to the conflict of interest guidelines. Will the Minister answer this question directly? Did the Minister receive some benefit from the loan negotiated by his wife with Magna International?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the public has a right to know that Ministers of the Crown have complied with the Code.


John V. Nunziata: How do we know? Give us the facts.


Erik Nielsen: There is a public record which is kept in the office of the Assistant Deputy Registrar General. I could ask the hon. gentleman whether or not he has visited the office of the Assistant Deputy Registrar General in order to look at the public records which are available to him. Has he done that?

May 7, 1986
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE THE MINISTER DID NOT RECEIVE ANY BENEFITS
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, we know the understanding that the Deputy Prime Minister has of the guidelines and so on, but the public must know whether or not the conflict of interest guidelines have been breached. That is something which is not decided by the Registrar. Will the Minister assure us that the guidelines were not breached and that there were no benefits to this Minister as a result of the loan as it was negotiated?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that the Hon. Member is asking questions without even having taken the trouble to visit the office of the ADRG to look at the public record. If he had done so he would have found that the Minister had fully complied with the Code, as he is required to do.


HOUSING
Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. On Monday, May 5, the Peterson Government of Ontario introduced a Draconian piece of legislation-the Rental Housing Act-which effectively blocks tenants of the former Cadillac Fairview apartment buildings from purchasing their own units. In view of the federal Government's interest in the buildings vis-a-vis the CDIC, will the Minister tell the House what action the federal Government is prepared to take in order to protect taxpayers and to assist tenants in their struggle for self-determination of their future and their homes?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his very important question. It is the first one today.
The Hon. Member must know that the responsibility rests with the Province of Ontario and the municipality. I can inform the Hon. Member that CMHC's policy as it pertains to social housing which is being sold is that tenants are given the right of first refusal. The Ontario Government has made a decision which is within its jurisdiction. I am very sorry, but there is nothing that the federal Government or-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. The Minister knows that in the next number of months one of his prime responsibilities will be with respect to the Government's decision to proceed with the sale of Cana-dair. He knows that Magna has submitted one of a number of bids which have been made for the company. As well, as Minister he knows-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order!


Brian Vincent Tobin: -neither the business community nor the public at large believe the Minister can be objective in managing this sale-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Brian Vincent Tobin: I wish to ask the Minister this. Does he not agree that if a senior official of York Centre, his own company, says he deserves a slap on the wrist, it is not surprising that the public of Canada believes he deserves a kick out of Cabinet?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I take it that the thrust of that-if we can call it a question-was, what is the process with respect to the privatization of Canadair? As I indicated to the House earlier, we have received five proposals which are now being analysed by Warburgs, Merrill Lynch and Burns Fry. In turn, they will be making recommendations to the officers of CDIC, who in turn will make a recommendation to the divestiture committee of CDIC, and then to the Board of CDIC, which will then make a recommendation to myself. From myself that recommendation will go to the privatization task force of Cabinet and, ultimately, the entire Cabinet will decide on what deal, if any, will be made with regard to Canadair.


INQUIRY OF MINISTER
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the real question is, what is the process by which this Minister, after a couple of weeks of heavy grilling in the House, comes to his senses, rediscovers his sense of decency and respect for public institutions-


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Does the hon. gentleman intend to tender his resignation and restore dignity to Parliament and to his post? That is the real question.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
May 7, 1986


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows that the comments in his preamble are out of order.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


John Carnell Crosbie: Sit down, Tobin!


THE ADMINISTRATION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. For a week we have been attempting to get an answer from the Minister. Up until today the Deputy Prime Minister has been answering, whether we like it or not. I wish to ask the Deputy Prime Minister this question. Whether the Minister gets a direct benefit from the loan obtained by his wife goes to the very root of the conflict of interest principle. I want the Minister to answer these questions. Will he tell us whether he agrees that the Minister is deriving a benefit? If that is so, should the Minister not leave his post? Will he answer those questions now, yes or no?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman might not be happy with the division of responsibilities and my responsibility as Acting Prime Minister to respond in the House with respect to the administration of the Code of Conduct and the Minister's responsibility for the Department which he heads. However, those are the facts of life. I do not share with the Hon. Member the accusations which he makes in the form of his questions. I am required, and have done so, to ensure that compliance is had with the Code of Conduct, to which all Ministers must comply.


ACTING PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, once again, that was no answer to the question. I say to the Minister with great seriousness, in the parliamentary system of government there is no place for the fifth amendment, which is a moral cop-out on the part of this Minister. That is what it is.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I will try it this way. Is the Minister now telling the House that on a question which goes to the root of the principle of conflict of interest, namely, whether the Minister obtains the benefit which goes to his wife, the Minister who claims responsibility for dealing with those issues would not have the courage and the integrity to answer the question? Is that what he is saying?
Oral Questions


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman can try it whichever way he pleases. He and all Members who have been asking questions on this matter for seven days have been trying to have me say what they would like me to say. I am not going to say what they would like me to say. I am going to discharge my responsibilities by telling them that I am entrusted with ensuring that the Code is complied with, and that that Minister has complied with the Code.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board. The prospect of domestic wheat price increases is concerning the processors of many flour-based products in that they may become non-competitive with imports from the United States. What action is the Government considering to safeguard the viability of Canadian food processors who are already paying six cents per pound more than their American competitors?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has raised a question of concern to all of us in the industry. As he will know, the parliamentary committee is investigating ways by which we can accomplish an increase in the domestic price of wheat, and at the same time ensure that there is fairness to processors, manufacturers, consumers, and farmers who are facing some very serious price competition. Before any decision is made, we want to ensure that all those considerations are being taken into account. At any rate, no decision will be made or no price increase will come into effect before the first of August.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Jean-Ciaude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Today, in an article by Paul-Andre Comeau appearing in the newspaper Le Devoir, I read, and I quote:
The federal Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion should have the courage to hand in his resignation to the leader of the Government.
Doesn't the Deputy Prime Minister agree it is immoral to defend his Minister's stand and that the people of Quebec can no longer trust this Minister with the Canadair dossier and the Matane paper mill project?

May 7, 1986
Oral Questions


Erik Nielsen: No, Mr. Speaker, not at all. I am really surprised that the hon. gentleman, coming from the Province of Quebec, would have condemnatory words to say about a Minister who, for the first time in 16 years, signed a $1 billion ERDA agreement with his own province.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSSIBLE RESIGNATION OF MINISTER OF REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
I would like to remind the Deputy Prime Minister that two Quebecers did have had the courage of their convictions: Mr. Masse and Mrs. Blais-Grenier had the courage to resign and to leave their jobs.
Is the Deputy Prime Minister prepared to ask the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion to resign his portfolio, since the attitude of the Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister reflects on the reputation of all Members of this House?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the hon. gentleman would accuse the former Minister of State of resigning by reason of some impropriety, because that is simply not the truth. In respect of the Minister of Communications, the facts are of record. He acted quite properly, and he is back with us, I am sure much to the pleasure of the hon. gentleman.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to switch for a moment to some other fishy business. My question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. As she knows, major trade unions representing fishermen and shore workers on both the East and West Coasts are here in the Gallery today for the first time in history-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: My mother-in-law is here too, but I wouldn't want to say it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows full well that any reference to the presence of anyone in the Gallery is out of order. The Hon. Member for Saskatoon East.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will come back in a minute to the Hon. Member for Skeena.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, I will.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a difficult enough day without all the noise. I will come back to the Hon. Member, but he knows that that reference was improper. The Hon. Member for Saskatoon East.


NEGOTIATIONS WITH OECD COUNTRIES ON AGRICULTURAL ISSUE
Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. In the past few days we saw the Prime Minister focus a great deal of international attention on the plight of western Canadian farmers in light of increasing and harmful American and European farm subsidies. When is the OECD expected to commence its study on the international agricultural issue, and what other measures will be taken by the Minister's officials with OECD countries to resolve the issue?


Hon. James Kelleher (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I advise the Hon. Member that work has already been started by the OECD. A report will be prepared and ready for the next OECD ministerial meeting. In the meantime, I and my colleagues, the Minister of Finance, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and other relevant Ministers, will be discussing the issue at every opportunity with members of the European Economic Community.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Skeena. Just a question, please.


FISHERIES
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Employment and Immigration prepared to allay the fears of fishermen on both the East and West Coasts of Canada and to assure them and their communities that they will continue to be fully covered by the Unemployment Insurance Act? Does the Minister, and her Government, agree that fishermen are workers in fact and must be covered by the Unemployment Insurance Act?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity of meeting
May 7, 1986

with these individuals yesterday, of exchanging views with them, and of receiving their representations. I must say that I understand their fears and concerns. I trust that I was able to allay them in some measure.


Some Hon. Members:: Not at all.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I also wish to state that at the conclusion of the meeting, they thanked me for the opportunity of having had the discussion.


MINISTER'S POSITION
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to get to the nub of it. Will the Minister rise in her place and agree that fishermen are workers in fact and that they should be covered by the Unemployment Insurance Act?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some confusion in the Hon. Member's mind. Fishermen are covered by the Unemployment Insurance Act.


James Ross Fulton: Are they workers, and are they to stay covered?


THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. A few minutes ago he reproached the Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie by indicating, in a way, that he should not ask questions related to investments in Quebec. Did the Deputy Prime Minister seriously mean to imply that investments made by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion in Quebec should deny the Opposition the right to pose questions to him on the integrity of that Minister?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not mean at all to stop the liberal flow of questions directed to me in my capacity as Deputy Prime Minister, as Minister of National Defence or, at the moment, as Acting Prime Minister.


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE REFERRAL
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in light of what transpired again today, why does the Deputy Prime Minister consistently reject the notion of sending this whole matter to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, this is a curious question which keeps getting raised. I think Hon. Members know that my distinguished colleague, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, will defend his
Point of Order-Mr. Gray (Windsor West)
Estimates tonight. He is going to be available to answer questions on departmental responsibilities. If the Hon. Member doesn't know that, he doesn't know anything.


POINTS OF ORDER
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a point of order about your rulings during Question Period about ministerial responsibility. I respectfully submit that the questions which you did not allow to be placed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) were clearly phrased and intended to refer to the Minister's handling of his responsibilities concerning his Department and his administration of that Department. Second, even if the questions related to the compliance of the Minister with the conflict of interest guidelines, I submit that they were still matters of the responsibility of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), in the letter which has been cited often in this House, says:
I wish it to be understood clearly by all Ministers that they have an individual responsibility to prevent conflicts of interests, including those that might arise out of activities of their spouses.
It may be that the Prime Minister has delegated to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) the job of administering the process of the application of the conflict of interest guidelines, but the Prime Minister has said very clearly that the responsibility for complying with those guidelines is on the shoulder of each and every Minister.
Surely if the Prime Minister of Canada says in writing what he considers to be the responsibilities of his Ministers, then I submit with the utmost respect that it should be good enough for you, Sir.
If you accept what the Prime Minister of Canada has said, and it is clear that questions can be validly directed to Ministers about how they comply with those guidelines, I want to bring my remarks on this point to a conclusion by bringing to your attention what I think is a very important precedent.
In February, 1983 questions were directed in this House to the Hon. Marc Lalonde when he was Minister of Finance. These questions related to a matter which, as the then Opposition alleged, involved conflict of interest, which we submit was in that case unfounded-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: You have blown your case.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -but that matter arose when the Hon. Marc Lalonde was Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the portfolio he held prior to being Minister of

May 7, 1986
Point of Order-Mr. Gray (Windsor West)
Finance. These questions to Mr. Lalonde were not only allowed by the Speaker but were answered by Mr. Lalonde. Among those asking questions was the then Hon. Member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley), and that individual is still in this House as the Hon. Member for Don Valley West.
I respectfully submit to you, Sir-and I now speak to you in your capacity as Speaker of this House-that if it was acceptable to your predecessor that a question asked by the Member from Don Valley West concerning a matter of conflict of interest involving a Minister not in the capacity he held when the questions were addressed but in his preceding capacity was in order, I say that there is now an unassailable precedent.
I say with the utmost respect that you should apply this precedent to questions being posed at this time in this House to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion involving his compliance with the Prime Minister's conflict of interest guidelines, which the Prime Minister himself said is a matter of individual ministerial responsibility. I ask you to apply this precedent in your undoubted role as the protector of the interests of all sides of this House and, in particular, the Official Opposition.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) on the same point of order.
Order, please. Could I appeal to the House on behalf of the Hon. Member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley) who would like to hear the rest of this matter, please.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to join with my colleague in asking that you reconsider over the next days the questions that were posed today and on other days that were put to the Minister to determine whether or not those questions are proper and can be put to the Minister. We are dealing with the Minister's capacity to perform duties assigned to him as a Minister for a particular portfolio. Those questions were directed with regard to whether the Minister is able to perform those duties properly. In addition, certain matters have occurred outside.
I want to suggest, for example, that in looking at the question you take into account a number of matters. To begin with, I ask you to get and read the open letter to Members of Parliament and Senators sent by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) dated September 9, 1985. On page 3 it says:
I wish it to be understood clearly by all Ministers that they have an individual responsibility to prevent conflicts of interest, including those that might arise out of activities of their spouses or dependent children or the dealings in property or investments which are owned or managed, in whole or in part, by their spouses or dependant children.
I also draw to your attention, Sir, in the guidelines themselves at page 3, Item 7 under the heading Principles, which reads:
7. Every public office holder shall conform to the following principles:
(a) Public office holders shall perform their official duties and so arrange their private affairs in such a manner that public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of Government are conserved and enhanced-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: What has that got to do with this?


Ian Deans: I contend that questions with regard to whether or not an individual Minister has lived up to both the requirements within the letter and the requirements within the guidelines can and ought to be addressed to the Minister himself or herself and no other Minister regardless of how competent they may think they are. I contend that the Minister can answer individual questions relating to matters that do touch upon his or her capacity to administer his or her Department properly. In this instance, given that there is a close relationship between events that occurred as a result of an action taken by the spouse of the Minister and the Minister's ability to perform his duties as set down by law, questions with regard to the action of that spouse, as they touch upon the Minister's responsibilities, are appropriate and can be put to the Minister.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, what we have just witnessed is, I guess, a reflection of the frustration of the Opposition with the ineffectual way in which the Opposition has been making unfair accusations without foundation against a Member of this House.


An Hon. Member:: Read the newspaper.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Let us simply put this into perspective.
I listened with great care to the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) when he brought out the so-called precedent concerning the much remembered Coalgate issue. With all deference to my hon. friend, that is a completely different and unrelated set of circumstances. I remember it very clearly. I know that the questions put by people who had something to question about at that time were directed to Mr. Lalonde in his capacity as Minister of Finance. He responded in that capacity with respect to the administration of his Department.
The opposition Members are trying to have it both ways. They are the first to rise in the House if a Minister, who does not have responsibility for departmental concerns, attempts to answer questions, because they allege a person is a reasonable representative, or if a Minister from the Province of Saskatchewan, for example, tries to answer a question with regard to the Province of Quebec. The rules are quite clear, Mr. Speaker. You are following precedents which have been established by Speakers through time immemorial in this place, that is, if a Minister has ministerial responsibility for a Department he can and should respond to questions.
The fact that there is a Code of Conduct for all Ministers does not give any particular responsibility to all Ministers. In this case, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) carries out the responsibility of monitoring the situation on behalf of the
May 7, 1986

Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). Questions with respect to compliance or otherwise with conflict of interest guidelines or the code of conduct are not a matter of ministerial responsibility. I am sorry to disappoint the Hon. Member opposite, but that is the fact. Yesterday and the day before he complained because the Acting Prime Minister was answering questions. He was trying to constrain the Acting Prime Minister from answering on behalf of the Government. Today he says the rules have all changed, and now they want Ministers to answer with respect to issues which do not fall under their departmental responsibility or the mandate of the position they hold.
With the greatest of deference, Sir, the precedent which has been put forward by the Hon. Member for Windsor West is totally irrelevant and has no bearing on this particular situation. On a number of occasions you have set out the rules with regard to Question Period. The Acting Prime Minister is responding with respect to policy and conflict of interest. There is no complaint whatsoever. The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) has answered every question put to him with respect to departmental responsibility. He makes himself available in the course of Estimates before committees of the House. The proposition put forward is without foundation or precedent.


Mr. Penner:: I rise on the point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: On the same point of order? 1 think the Chair has heard the arguments. I will hear the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) very briefly.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I have been looking carefully for some direction in Beauchesne's in the form of a ruling which would support the contention that a Minister may not be asked about his compliance or otherwise with a Code of Conduct to which he has individually agreed to adhere. I fail to find anywhere in Beauchesne's Fifth Edition that such questions are inadmissible. Citation 359 on page 132 says:
A question must be within the administrative competence of the Government.
It then deals specifically with the Minister within the Government and says:
The Minister to whom the question is directed is responsible to the House for his present Ministry-
Sir, we link competency and responsibility for that Ministry. I find it inconceivable to imagine how you can have competency when you have failed to live up to the responsibilities which are outlined in a Code of Conduct. Competency and adherence to the code of conduct are directly linked.
The Hon. House Leader has argued as well that we cannot put questions to Ministers which are outside of their direct responsibility. Again, Beauchesne's is very clear on what kind of areas lie outside. Nowhere does it mention that the Code of Ethics is excluded. Citation 361 on page 133 reads:
A question may not be asked of a Minister in another capacity, such as being responsible for a province, or part of a province, or as spokesman for a racial or religious group.
Point of Order-Mr. Gray (Windsor West)
It does not say "his or her responsibility for the Code of Conduct".
Without citing particular instances, but rather speaking in generalities, it is clear in my memory that whenever a Minister of the Crown was, at some point in his career, in personal difficulty with respect to ethics, it was never suggested by the Chair that that Minister could not be cross-examined. There are all sorts of examples in the Journals-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please!


B. Keith Penner: -where a Minister was cross-examined by members of the Opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order! Order, please. This is now veering into comment on the Chair, with respect. I accept and welcome the arguments which have been made on the procedural question. I will be glad to hear the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) very briefly in one second. As I heard them, to my hearing, the questions which were put by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), were put to the Minister about his personal affairs. That is why I ruled them out of order. I would be glad to check that with the "blues".


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear to your Honour that in my latter remarks I was not, in any way, reflecting upon the Chair. I was saying that Speakers had allowed those questions. It was no reflection on you, Sir. I was simply saying that there are many, many precedents in the House where a Minister was cross-examined regarding his or her personal conduct. The questions were not necessarily directly related to his or her portfolio. I was not, therefore, in saying that, reflecting upon you. I was simply quoting historical precedents in the House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate.


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, in bringing down your decision on this point of order I believe that probably the most important thing to be kept in mind is that we all recognize that the House of Commons has, over the years, for one reason or another, lost its control over what we define as law-making. The major duty of the House of Commons today is a surveillance function of the Government of Canada, that is, holding the Government accountable. I fear that unless there is a division in the ruling that you give, and not a decision based on a general principle which, granted, appears to have become accepted, your primary concern should be that the House of Commons still be able to fulfil perhaps the only role that it has left, and that is, its proper surveillance of the Government of Canada on behalf of the people of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I could share with the House a brief note from the Clerk which reads: "I assume you will reserve". Yes, I intend to. I do want to reiterate to the Hon. Member for

May 7, 1986
Point of Order-Mr. Attewell
Windsor West (Mr. Gray) that my reasoning on the first set of questions was that, as far as I could tell, there was no mention in the body of the questions as to how they related to the conflict of interest issue. That was my reason in that case.
For the last few days the Chair has tried to grant as broad a latitude as it could within the practices of the House. The Chair has been quite concerned about where to draw the line. I will be happy to look at the arguments and return to the House. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Attewell) on a separate point of order.


QUESTIONS PUT TO COMMITTEE CHAIRMEN
Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is a very important rule in this House. I would like to draw your attention to Standing Order 66(3). As I understand it, it provides that any Member who asks a question during Question Period and, for whatever reason, thinks the answer is incomplete or unsatisfactory, is able to send notice to the Clerk and participate in an Adjournment Debate. Section 66(3) outlines that the Member has up to seven minutes in which to speak and that a Minister of the Crown or a Parliamentary Secretary has up to three minutes in which to speak.
With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring it to your attention that last Monday I asked the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources a question and wanted to pursue it through the Adjournment Debate. I sent a note to the Clerk at the Table. I was later advised that this process was not available on a question asked of a chairman of a standing committee.
With great respect, given my extensive experience of 20 months in this House, I ask that you consider this question. It may have been a drafting oversight. If not, could we perhaps avail ourselves of the reason for what appears to be an omission?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think the second part of the point of order by the Hon. Member, as I understood it, about being able to have what we call a "Late Show" on his question, is a point worthy of consideration. If the rules as interpreted by you, Sir, in your judgment, are too narrow-and I hope you will not find that-I will be happy to consult with my colleagues about possible changes. However, if he was suggesting in the first part of his point of order that there is something questionable or improper about raising points of order concerning Question Period, I respectfully submit that whatever the rules say about Question Period, there are innumerable precedents concerning points of order being raised, listened to by the Speaker, and accepted. I just want to put that on the record.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think the Hon. Member was suggesting that. The matter has been brought to my attention. I am afraid the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) is
going to be slightly disappointed because I am ready to say something.
The Chair looked at this matter when it was brought to my attention by the Table Officers at the request of the Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Attewell). I have examined the rule quite carefully. It seems to me that the rule was drafted in the context of questions to and answers by Ministers or Parliamentary Secretaries. The whole issue of a change which would allow questions to the chairman of a standing committee or whatever is not contemplated in the rule. I conclude that from the part of the rule which indicates that a Minister of the Crown or a Parliamentary Secretary speaking on behalf of a Minister, if he or she wishes to do so, may speak in reply for not more than three minutes.
I have to find that because I have to rule that the chairman of the committee may not reply. The reason for this is that the chairman of the committee is not mentioned here as having a right to reply. Therefore, if the House follows me, I have to rule that the first seven minutes of the "Late Show" cannot be, under the rules as they are written, granted in that situation. In other words, the right to comment carries with it the right to reply. The rule says that. If I have to rule that no reply is proper, then I have to rule that the commencement is improper. I do not think I have any other choice, given the rule.
Therefore, I suggest that if Members wish the rules changed, they will have to proceed that way. House Leaders may wish to advise me that they want me to interpret the standing order in some other way, but that is the way the Chair interprets it for now. If the Hon. Member for Windsor West and the Parliamentary Secretary are asking me to say that without making a final decision, I am happy to do so and then to discuss it further.
On another point of order, the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata).


REASON REQUESTED FOR DISALLOWANCE OFS.O. 21 STATEMENT
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, while I was making a statement pursuant to Standing Order 21 today, Your Honour prematurely cut me off. I would like to ask Your Honour to explain why I was not permitted to make a full statement pursuant to Standing Order 21.


Mr. Speaker:: For the reasons I indicated at the time. In my view the statement was out of order.


John V. Nunziata: May I ask why the statement was out of order?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member may wish to consult the rules. I think it will be clear.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, if I may-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John V. Nunziata: 
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John V. Nunziata: On the same point?


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


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I was making a statement of fact about a relationship-


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member now wish to raise a point of order saying that the Chair was wrong?


John V. Nunziata: Yes, the Chair was wrong, Sir.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member knows that such a comment is against the rules.


John V. Nunziata: It is not fair not to allow me to make my statement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John V. Nunziata: It is pretty unfair.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the Hon. Member now commenting on the Chair again?


Mr. Benjamin:: He is just trying to figure a way around the rule.


Mr. Speaker:: If he is commenting on the Chair, I will require him to withdraw it. If he is not, if he did not mean it that way, I am perfectly happy to go no further.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


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: Nos. 331-436, 331-463, 331-464 and 331-470 to 331-473 inclusive.



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101, I have the honour to present
Committee Reports
the third report of the Canadian section of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association, in both official languages.



PRESENTATION OF THIRD REPORT OF INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FRENCH-SPEAKING PARLIAMENTARIANS

Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the third report of the Association of French-Speaking Parliamentarians concerning our visit to Brasilia from April 20 to April 25.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the eleventh report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. The report deals with the administration of the Law Reform Commission. Members of the committee recognize the important role of the Law Reform Commission in improving and modernizing Canadian law, but this report addresses a number of concerns relating to the management of the Commission. The commission has not updated or revised its original research program since its inception in 1972. It has not kept the Minister of Justice and Parliament fully informed of changes to its work plan. In the view of the Public Accounts Committee, greater attention should be given to project management practices in order to avoid costly delays as is the case with the criminal law review project.



ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES-SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

['Agreed.']
Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the second report of the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources concerning Order in Council appointments tabled pursuant to Standing Order 103(1) and referred pursuant to Standing Order 67(5).
The committee has considered and is in agreement with the following appointments and nominations: Mr. Kenneth Morton Bridge to the British Columbia-Yukon-Northwest Territories Boundary Commission; Mr. Andrew Boyd Gil-mour, as temporary member of the National Energy Board; and Mr. de Montigny Marchand, Mr. P. M. Towe, Mr. W. H. Hopper and Mrs. M. Catley Carlson to the Board of Directors of Petro-Canada International Assistance Corporation.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]

May 7, 1986
Petitions
[ Translation]



Mr. Carlo Rossi (Bourassa):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from residents of the Municipality of Saint-Hyacinthe, the City of Saint-Hyacinthe, and other Quebec municipalities. The petitioners maintain that recent unemployment insurance changes have put Canadian early retirees in a very precarious financial situation, that the changes were decreed without any debate in the House of Commons, and that most Canadians affected by these changes were not given sufficient notice before opting for early retirement.
Wherefore the petitioners humbly call upon Parliament to repeal forthwith these changes to the unemployment insurance regulations. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, for those on the government side who think that the anger about the cancellation of Katimavik did not exist or, if it did, has passed by, I have another 100 names on petitions from British Columbia and Quebec. These young people again take this opportunity to express their anger at the Government over the cancellation of Katimavik and for failure to develop a proper youth program.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 261.


Mr. Gauthier: 1.	Has the Department of Public Works in any way disposed of its title to the Daly building and/or the Daly building site and (a) if so (i) by what means (ii) on what date (iii) to whom (b) if not, is any date projected for such disposal and, if so (i) by what means (ii) on what date (iii) to whom?
2.	Is there any demolition and/or redevelopment schedule for the Daly building and/or the site and, if so (a) what demolition or redevelopment (b) on what dates (c) under what owner or lessee?


Hon. Roch La Salle (Minister of Public Works):: 1. (a) and
(b) The Daly building property is still owned by Public Works Canada. However, Treasury Board has approved the transfer of the property to the National Capital Commission. The Department of Justice will be requested to legally close the transaction.
2. NCC is looking for adaptive re-use of the building and has conducted a prequalification call which attracted 14 submissions. Six of these developers were then prequalified.
(a)	NCC is now proceeding to Stage II of the proposal call, involving a request for financial proposals for the property. NCC considers that sufficient interest has been demonstrated to make retention of the existing structure possible.
(b)	It is anticipated that financial proposals will be received by August, 1986, and that the necessary municipal and federal approvals will then be sought for a projected construction start of Fall, 1988.
(c)	The selection of the lessee will depend on the outcome of the proposal call process.


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.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all Notices of Motions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, May 6, 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. Garneau (p. 12980).
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-96 is to cut back the
May 7, 1986
[Stage Direction]
federal financial transfers to provinces for education and health, in particular, to cut back transfers from the federal Government to the provinces for post-secondary education, medicare and hospitalization.
As my colleagues have said before me, this Bill C-96 is completely unacceptable to the Liberal Party. In the next few minutes I have I will explain why.
Yesterday, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) speaking in this debate said that the Bill was necessary because of the large deficit left by the previous Liberal Government. It is true that the deficit is high and must be dealt with, but it was not caused by programs for education and health. These programs have been in place for many years now, as have unemployment insurance, family allowance, medicare and hospitalization programs. In fact, some of them have been in place for 20 years. They did not cause a deficit.
The serious deficit we have now started in 1981 with the recession, not because of new programs, assistance to education, hospitalization and medication, but because of the recession when world-wide conditions, which affected not only Canada, but the entire western world and beyond, resulted in a situation where you had many people put out of work, and consequently not paying taxes. There were many companies which went under due to the situation and did not pay taxes as a result, so less revenue came in to the Government. There was a lot more revenue going out in the form of unemployment insurance, bail-outs and assistance to people in trouble. That is what caused the deficit. It was not the fault of the programs to assist education and health.
During the election campaign of 1984, Conservative Party Members continually referred to the deficit and said how bad it was. As a matter of fact, they even said at the time that it was worse than it actually was. Despite the fact they said it was bad during the campaign, they made 328 promises, most of which entailed the spending of money, including a promise to respect social programs, which they said for them was a sacred trust.
What did they say with respect to transfers to provinces for education and health care? I will quote from a document which they drafted at Sherbrooke on July 26, 1984, in which they promised the following:
To respect the federal obligation to finance health care in the provinces through the Established Programs Financing Program and to provide additional funds to the provinces, on a parity basis, to create or enhance those programs which would be identified by a national conference of health ministers and health professionals as the ones most likely to improve the general health of Canadians and to limit the costs of the system in the long run.
During the election campaign they railed against the deficit and said how bad it was, but still made the promise I just read, which promise they are now breaking by presenting this Bill to the House of Commons to cut back on transfers to the provinces for education and health.
Finally, they attack the deficit by going after education and health, when at the same time in their recent Budgets they provided for a $500,000 tax exemption for capital gains, which
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
will amount to a cost to the Government of $4.5 billion between this date and 1990. The Government is doing that for the big rollers. The Government provided for a bail-out to banks that have failed in this country due to mismanagement, not only in the banks but at the Government level, which will cost $1 billion. There were special benefits to large oil companies which cost the Treasury a lot of money. As soon as the Conservatives were elected they increased the size and salaries of Ministers' staff. For the first time in Canadian history the Government provided an office for the wife of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), Mila Mulroney, one which is much nicer than any of those that we have, all at public expense.
Mr. McDermid:: Have you seen it?


Mr. Allmand:: Have you?


John Horton McDermid: Yes.


William Warren Allmand: Why is it there? It is better than the office I had, I will tell you. It is an unwarranted expense when you are cutting back on education and health, and you know it.
The Government recently provided new offices in Vancouver for Ministers travelling about the country, while it is cutting back on education and health. I ask you, what kind of equity is that? What kind of balance is that? Here we have education and health, two of the key, essential programs for Canadians, which are essential not simply for Canadians but for all of us, because education is an investment in the economic growth of the country. It is an investment and cannot be considered simply as a transfer payment. It is an investment in the knowledge, the know-how and the capability of Canadians to produce for this country an efficient, modern nation. Second, it is an investment in the health of Canadians, which is also important for the productivity and well-being of the country.
Here we are cutting back on two essential items while we are spending with respect to the big banks, the oil companies, the capital gains taxes and so on.
The real purpose of this Bill is to transfer the federal Government's deficit to the provinces. Many of the provincial Ministers have said that. I will quote two of the provincial Ministers who are Conservatives. John Baxter, the New Brunswick Minister of Finance said:
It is unreasonable for the federal Government to think that provinces which have taken difficult measures to deal with their own financial situation can also be expected to absorb part of the problem at the federal level.
Richard Hatfield, the Premier of New Brunswick, said the following:
I shall have no choice but to increase user-fees for health services.
Robert Nixon, the Treasurer for Ontario, said:
There was uniform opposition to Ottawa's plan, (referring to all the provincial Finance Ministers). Nobody thought it was a good idea.
This is the situation: a transfer of the federal debt to the provinces that cannot afford the burden, in particular with respect to education and health care. These agreements with

May 7, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
the provinces with respect to education and health care were renegotiated in 1982, and the agreement was to last for five years until 1987. What did this Government do? It unilaterally, in a premature way, changed the agreement by way of this Bill.
In law they have the right to do that, but there has been a tradition that these five-year agreements are negotiated with the provinces, and they stand for the five-year period until renegotiated at the end of the term for a new agreement of five years to follow afterwards. That was not done in this case. We have a unilateral move by the Government to change the rules of the game in the middle of the agreement. Furthermore, these changes were not in the last federal Budget handed down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson).
My time is up, but I want to say that this is bad legislation and should be rejected by the House of Commons.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the recent amendment, which is before the House, an amendment to Bill C-96. Of course, one cannot help but comment on Bill C-96. When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) brought down his Budget we saw all kinds of obvious tax increases, including increases in the federal sales tax. We know what these taxes have done to ordinary Canadians throughout the country. However, there is another hidden tax for which the Tory Government is responsible. It is a tax that will be transferred to the provinces, so that they will have to increase the taxes on their citizens in order to keep up and improve the level of medicare and post-secondary education.
This unilateral action of the federal Government will have serious ramifications for all Canadians.
There is no place in Canada that will be hurt more than Atlantic Canada. I want to examine how these cuts in the established programs financing-the transfer payments to the provinces-will affect Atlantic Canada in regard to postsecondary education and health care. These two areas should not only have been left untouched, they should have been improved. Yet the Government's action will have a severe impact on Atlantic Canada, which is a region that suffers the highest unemployment in this country. It is a region that does not have the same opportunities as central Canada for economic expansion.
We know the history of that region only too well. When the unemployment statistics come out every month we hope that there is some relief in sight for Atlantic Canada.
Let us examine how Newfoundland will be affected by the cuts in transfer payments envisaged in Bill C-96. In 1986-87, there will be $7 million less; there will be $16 million less in 1987-88; $24 million less in 1988-89; $35 million less in 198990; and $46 million less in 1990-91. This means that there will be a total of $128 million less for the Province of Newfoundland.
Premier Peckford of Newfoundland, a fellow Conservative of the Government, stated at the Halifax First Ministers' Conference on November 28 and November 29, 1985:
It (the EPF cut-backs) will mean $130 million less than we thought we could expect over four or Five years. And there is, Mr. Chairman, a myth going about this country that somehow some of the provinces have not managed their Finances very good.
He went on to say:
-I think we are the only jurisdiction in Canada, if not the world, that imposed upon everybody that got a dollar from the public purse, zero per cent increase in year one, zero per cent increase in year two for teachers, nurses, hospital workers, clerks, secretaries. Everybody is under zero, zero in a pretty, pretty disadvantaged province with the lowest incomes and all the rest of it... We, Mr. Prime Minister, froze the Budgets of all the hospitals in the St. John's region for three years at 1984 levels-
A Conservative Premier was describing the effects of this on Newfoundland.
I notice that there are some Conservative Members from Newfoundland in the House. I hope they will join in the debate on this issue and explain their position to their constituents in Newfoundland. Let us take hospitals, for example. St. Claire Mercy Hospital in St. John's has launched a $3 million fund raising campaign. The campaign chairman, Ian Reid, said on December 19, 1985:
With fiscal restraints imposed by the provincial Government over the past four years, both the quality and quantity of hospital services for Newfoundland will inevitably slip backwards unless remedial action is taken.
That will be the effect of Bill C-96. It will exacerbate the situation experienced by the St. Claire Mercy Hospital in St. John's.
An article in the Evening Telegram on January 17, 1986, states:
Following the federal announcement that EPF contributions would be cut, Newfoundland issued a Green Paper outlining the impact of these cuts on health care. Despite severe restraint over the last five years the province still spends a quarter of its Budget on health care.
Newfoundland will have to find those funds elsewhere. It cannot afford these cut-backs. Why are the victims of economic deprivation being punished? Why is the Government going to punish Newfoundland? The Government, which was supported so well by the people of Newfoundland in 1984, is biting the hand that feeds it. The people of Newfoundland should keep that in mind, come the next federal election.
Newfoundland's two biggest hospitals, both of which are located in St. John's, each have a waiting list of more than 1,000 for elective and minor surgery and for the treatment of acute illnesses. Ralph Moore, the director of one of the hospitals, the Health Services Centre, said that cuts in federal spending hurt the health system in Newfoundland more than in most provinces. I suggest that we can apply the effects of the cut-backs on the health care system in Newfoundland to all of the Atlantic region.
I believe the Government has forgotten the words of Emmett Hall, one of the architects of the medicare system in this country. During a speech which he gave in Manitoba recently he said: "I think the defence of medicare requires the
May 7, 1986

same priority as the defence of the nation." He said that in many senses, the two are very alike and should be treated that way. I believe it is true that the defence of the medicare system in Canada is similar to the defence of the nation. I think the federal Conservative Government has forgotten that.
Let us turn to the effects of Bill C-96 on post-secondary education in Newfoundland. I quote as follows from an article in the Evening Telegram on August 24, 1985:
Memorial University is experiencing both budget restraint and rising enrolment. The result may be limitations on enrolment this year. Last year it dealt with the problem by having classes until 10 pm. Despite these financial problems the university actually received a 6.5 per cent increase this year-well above most provincial programs.
Leslie Harris, President of Memorial University of Newfoundland, said that the federal Government's plan to reduce transfer payments is an "Extremely short-sighted approach to reduce the deficit."
Another article in the Evening Telegram on December 19, 1985 states:
Memorial University has withheld $2 million from faculty and staff pensions to permit it to balance its books to the end of the year.
As a result of the multiplier effect of these cut-backs, Memorial University had to resort to the pension fund of the faculty.
We see the same Draconian impact on each of the Atlantic provinces as a result of Bill C-96. Why does the Tory Government not go to its friends in order to reduce the deficit? Why are all the taxes in various tax schemes forgone and left untouched? The Government cuts the deficit on the backs of ordinary Canadians while giving a lifetime capital gains tax exemption of $500,000. If the Government wants to cut the deficit, it should look to those people who live off the hog in this country and do not pay their fair share of taxes.
The Government should attack unemployment in this country if it is sincere about cutting the deficit. I have said many times in the past that if the Government could reduce unemployment by 1 per cent a year, it could reduce the deficit by $2 billion. Yet the Government does not have a concentrated plan to reduce unemployment in this country. It only knows how to cut the deficit on the backs of working Canadians. It is shameful that the Government has chosen the least defensive people in Atlantic Canada and put the boots to them through Bill C-96.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am also interested in joining in this debate because I believe these transfer payment cut-backs affect every Canadian who must take advantage of our national health scheme. It also touches every single Canadian who aspires to a post-secondary education. Something which has made us unique as a country is the fact that notwithstanding other countries such as the United States which has developed a private sector health care plan, we have adopted a national health scheme which has permitted every single Canadian man and woman to take advantage of the services of health care when he or she needs it
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
at little or no cost to the recipient. We know at the moment that the primary users of our health care system tend to be our elderly, in particular, our elderly women who live below the poverty line. What the Government is doing with its cut-backs, without any consultation with the provinces, without any of the promised discussion which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) heralded when he came to office with his huge majority, is imposing a responsibility on the provinces to cut back in areas of post-secondary education and health.
We have already seen the results of the pressure put upon provincial Governments by the federal Government as the result of these cut-backs. Essentially, what the Government is doing is transferring its deficit to the provinces. Notwithstanding the comments made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) when he said: "We are going to come to grips with the deficit. We are the bottom line. The buck stops here", we know that is absolutely not the case because the Minister of Finance, without talking to a single province, in private discussions which we know he taped and then forgot to tell the Province of Manitoba he was taping, made a unilateral decision, along with his Government, to cut the very life-blood of our post-secondary education and health care programs.
In the Province of Ontario, because of that same pressure with respect to its health care system, negotiations are currently going on between the provincial Government of Ontario and the Ontario Medical Association. We hear and read in the newspapers that the OMA is calling on its friends in the federal Government to move in on the question of the ban on extra billing, even though we know that Hon. Members of that same federal Government, when they were in opposition, supported an all-party request for a ban on extra billing. The Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDer-mid) is shaking his head. The Hon. Member for Brampton- Georgetown, if he wishes to say otherwise, should set the record straight. It is my belief and understanding, and the record will show, that the Canada Health Act was supported unanimously by all three Parties.
The Conservative Government's commitment to health care is simply not what it pretends to be. A case in point is the Province of British Columbia. Over the last number of months we have seen the Province of British Columbia ignore the question of accessibility with respect to the Canada Health Act by limiting the number of persons who can practise in that province through the Government administered plan. What that does indirectly is to say to the people of British Columbia who live in small towns and isolated communities: "You will not have access to the same kind of first-class quality medical care as will other Canadians".
Unfortunately, we have not heard a peep from the Minster of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) on this very important issue. He has remained strangely silent. We hear the Minister defending cut-backs in family allowances and reductions in the amounts which will be made available to

May 7, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
families for the protection of their children, but he says nothing when it comes to the erosion of the Canada Health Act, which is occurring not only in British Columbia, through actions taken by the provincial Government of British Columbia, but also right here in this Chamber with this particularly insidious piece of legislation.
Anyone who understands the bottom line will know that the direct result of this particular measure will be to force provincial Governments to increase their own taxes, reduce services or introduce user-fees for our health care system. Heaven knows, in the area of post-secondary education, our provinces are already strapped when it comes to trying to deliver the kind of universally accessible publicly funded post-secondary education which has been a hallmark of this country. I think Canada has a kind of unique and available system for every Canadian. Unforunately, with this particular amendment, we will see in the very near future the day when only the rich can afford to go to university and only the wealthy can afford to send their children to college.
That was the way it was when my parents were growing up. They did not have the money to go to university and to pursue post-secondary education. By the time I had grown up and entered the system, that had changed. We had embraced a system where post-secondary education was available on the basis of skill and merit and not on the basis of family finances. With this particular cut-back, we will see a return to the old days when only the privileged could send their children to university and give them post-secondary education, when only the wealthy could go to the good schools. That is not the way of life which has typified Canada. If there is one thing which has made us different from our American counterparts, it is our recognition of our collective responsibility for health care and education. I think the two cornerstones of any Government are those which protect our young through access to education and information and which protect our old through a fully funded, universally accessible health care system. With this particular measure we see that access being eroded.

For instance, we know there is going to be a financial crisis in many provinces. If we consider the impact this will have on the province of Quebec, over a period of four years the province will have a deficit of $1,493 billion, while the province of Ontario will suffer cuts totalling over $2 billion. Mr. Speaker, in the province of Ontario, these cuts over a four-year period will have a direct impact on post-secondary education and health care services.

It was interesting to note, as the Government passes off its responsibility for the deficit to the provinces with this particular measure, the announcement of the new Public Service salaries on the news last night. The Government more than doubled the salaries paid to people who are earning over $70,000 per year. I understand from comments which were made on the television program that those salaries were paid
specifically to political assistants as opposed to general Public Service employees.
The Government has the money to pay Michael Deaver. Even before his contract ended in Washington, the Canadian Government had made a "buddy-buddy" deal with Mr. Deaver through the auspices of Fred Doucet-some might say it was through the auspices of his brother or other relatives. Mr. Deaver was paid by the Canadian Government in a way which is casting doubt and a cloud of suspicion on the Canadian Government for involving itself in the hiring of an official who had just left the White House. The hiring of Mr. Deaver in the United States appears to be in violation of its conflict of interest guidelines. We know that if he had been a Canadian Government official, it would have been in conflict of our conflict of interest guidelines. However, the Prime Minister and the Government have taken the position that they will not even appear before the American committee hearings which are reviewing this conflict of interest. They have already paid him. They found the money to pay him quickly and without any public notice. At the same time they cannot find the money for our provinces with respect to health care and postsecondary education.
Unfortunately, that seems to be a theme of the Conservative Government. It wants to do things under the table, through the back-door, without coming clean with the public as to the exact cost benefit analysis to each and every Canadian. I would like to know why Michael Deaver is being protected by the Canadian Government in this particularly insidious hiring in which we see he was paid up even before his contract had been signed. If the pay is there for him, why is it not there for the provinces through transfer payments?


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I started to speak the other day on this matter and, of course, 10 minutes does not afford one a long time to make the arguments I think have to be made.


John Horton McDermid: It is never enough time for you.


Ian Deans: My colleague says it is never enough time. He is probably right. I find it very difficult to understand the reasoning of the Government.
I had an opportunity last evening to listen to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) as he spoke in a very entertaining way, I might say, about the Government's position vis-a-vis the cutbacks which are occurring as a result of this piece of legislation. I have always held that the country will be measured by its capacity to provide an adequate level of health care and a fair opportunity for education. With these two items, the basis of a good and reasonable lifestyle for the majority of our citizens has been created.
I admit that there are other factors which come into play. If it was the intention of the Government to ensure fair and equal access to health care, as was determined many years ago, then
May 7, 1986

the action now being taken by the Government flies in the face of that commitment. If it is the position of the federal Government that its role in more equitably distributing opportunities for fair and equal access to health care is to be diminished, then I think it should say so. If the Government believes it is reasonable either to transfer more of the burden of cost to the provinces, or to transfer more of the burden of cost to individuals and families, then I think we have a basic and fundamental disagreement here in the House of Commons.
As I listen to the arguments infrequently put forward by government Members and their supporters with regard to why this is a useful piece of legislation, I cannot help but feel that the Government has not yet come to grips with the reality of the situation. If we are to transfer more of the burden from the federal to the provincial levels of Government, that will inevitably mean that most provinces where there is not an adequate tax base today will have to reduce the level of health care facilities, and, therefore, the level of health care they deliver to their citizens. I would have thought, and I say to those Ministers who are present-both of them-that, given that they come from regions of the country which fall into the category of needing a more fair distribution of the national wealth, the argument I am now making would have been put forward by them. I would not be surprised if it was put forward, which may well have happened in the secrecy of a cabinet meeting. Of course, that is something we do not know. However, it is something which is not being advanced here in the House of Commons.
I wish to say to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay) that one of the problems which will now flow from the decision being taken by the Government is that families in the less-advantaged provinces, which even in this day and age still do not have the same degree of access to health care which families in the more affluent areas have, will have even less access. They will not even be able to enjoy the somewhat more limited access which they had previously enjoyed. Frankly, I do not think that is in the best interests of co-operative federalism. I do not happen to believe it is consistent with the nature of the country. I feel that the Government should take this piece of legislation-well, I could tell it what to do with it-but it should at least rethink it before it does anything with it.
I say this because there is a serious problem emerging. I suggest that the problem I identify in health care will be felt equally in the area of post-secondary education. The Minister knows that the families of fishermen have enough trouble now scraping together the necessary dollars to allow their offspring to go to a university or college of their choice in order to improve the quality of life beyond that which their forefathers enjoyed. I think that is fair to say. I do not think I would get any disagreement on that point. It is something which is equally true of the families of loggers and of miners. In fact, it is now becoming true for those families who reside in the built-up areas of the country. By reducing the level of increase in
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
transfer payments, thereby reducing the amount of money available to the provinces, and thereby reducing the amount of money available for post-secondary education, tuition fees will have to rise. If tuition fees rise I know, as do all Members, that in terms of income, many marginal families which were scraping together the money to allow their children to go on to what they hoped would be a better quality of life through a better education will no longer be able to afford to do that. I suggest to the Government that the rest of Canada is prepared to assume the necessary responsibility for ensuring that that will not be the consequence of the action the Government is taking. It need not and should not be the consequence of the new direction of this Government.
I would like to put forward Ontario as an example. The Province of Ontario is economically diverse. As everyone knows, some areas are more affluent than others. Some areas of the province have easy access to health care and education while others have less easy access. In some cases, access is very difficult to achieve. Children in areas where access is less easy, or where economic deprivation exists, and who by virtue of support programs offered through a variety of different means, but which are no longer being offered because of the economic downturn which has taken place in many of these areas, will be doomed to a life not at all unlike the life which their parents decided was not adequate for them because they had already had to live it. They will not be able to improve their lot. They will not be able to provide Canada with the benefits of a more highly-educated society.
Over the next five years the Province of Ontario will lose $2,014 billion as a result of the proposed cuts. Where will the province go to find $2,014 billion? How many hospital beds will have to be eliminated, and in what communities? How many places in universities will have to be cut as a result of the loss of this revenue? How many youngsters will not be able to continue with their education because they will not be able to attend institutions as a result of fee increases which will inevitably take place? How many people will knock on hospital doors with illnesses which require hospitalization, only to be turned away because the hospital will not be able to provide the level of service which it had been providing previously? I might add that this is a level of service which has been diminishing systematically over the last five or six years.
In closing, I say that I am puzzled by the way the Government has set its priorities. I am concerned that the Government does not recognize that the taxpayers at the federal level are, indeed, the taxpayers at the provincial level. They are one and the same. EPF is intended to distribute more equitably the tax base in such a way as to guarantee basic services in areas of greatest need. That is what we were all committed to when we decided to become a country. That is what we in the Parliament of Canada have been committed to over the many years Parliament has been operating. That is what we in this party remain committed to. That is what I thought the Conservative Party was committed to when it sat in opposition.
13056

May 7, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act


Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate for the second time and to support the amendment of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau), which reads as follows:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
"this House refuse to continue the consideration of this Bill, the purpose of which is to unilaterally reduce federal payments to the provinces for postsecondary education and health services which are essential."
I stress the same points which the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) stressed. While health care is very important, and while the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain suggested that it may be affected by the over-all cut-backs, it seems to me that the most serious effect will be on young people. That is why I consider the Bill to be so important. It strikes at something very fundamental in Canadian society, that is, the situation in which young people find themselves. The Senate report has just described them as being in danger of becoming a lost generation. They are at the divide between the technological society and the information society. They are caught in a time warp. They are caught in a squeeze. They are caught in a transition from one society to another. They are in jeopardy. They are in danger. They are a generation which is struggling to find their place in the sun in future and to discover how they will live up to the expectations which their parents had for them, as the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain said.
It is all very well to talk about free trade. It is all very well to talk about industrial restructuring. It is all very well to talk about capital investment. It is all very well to talk about the creation of jobs, as did the Government during the election campaign. It is all very well to give priority to those matters and to come up with a strategy to achieve those objectives. However, unless we give young Canadians the wherewithal to take advantage of the opportunities created, all of that is useless and beside the point.
Again I have to say that what we have is a generation which is in danger of being a lost generation, as the Senate described it. It is no more evident than in my own province where 50 per cent of eligible young people are unemployed and have dim prospects for employment. It is probably the highest percentage in the whole country, and I suggest that it is a national tragedy. That is the kind of thing about which I am talking, and it is at a time when they need training and education. The great hope is that somehow jobs will be created in that province by the development of the offshore, for example. Even if they are-and I hope they are-how do our people take advantage of those opportunities unless they have the training which is needed? That is what we were depending upon, and that is where we are losing out as a result of Bill C-96. Over the next five years the Province of Newfoundland will receive $187 million less than it had anticipated. This is in a province which is already strapped for financial resources.
How can the Province of Newfoundland find the money to do the things which need to be done? The Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) addressed that issue yesterday, and the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain alluded to it again today. If we say to the Province of Newfoundland that it has to find $187 million more this year within its own resources because it is not coming from the Government of Canada, what can it do? Can it raise taxes above the highest rate in the country? The sales tax in Newfoundland is 12 per cent, the highest anywhere in Canada. The income tax is as high as it can possibly be, on people who can least afford to bear the burden. Should Newfoundland raise taxes? Should it cut back services? As the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain asked, should it reduce the number of hospital beds? Should it reduce highway services? Should it reduce welfare and other services? Where will the reduction be? Where will provinces like Newfoundland find resources if those resources are not forthcoming from the Government of Canada?
Never mind that a tradition, if not a legal agreement, was abrogated; never mind that argument. Legally, the Government of Canada can do what it is doing, but traditionally it has not done that. Traditionally in the fifth year of an agreement there would be a renegotiation. We heard about the new civility and the new co-operation. However, at the end of a five-year agreement, the Province of Newfoundland is being told unilaterally that it must be prepared to receive $187 million less than it had anticipated and less than what was agreed to. That is what the Government of Canada is saying to Newfoundland and to the young people of Newfoundland. I suggest that that is the real tragedy about the Bill before us today.
Everyone from whom we have heard suggests that there is a crisis now in post-secondary education. The universities have less funds available to them to cope with the number of students who want an education. There is a crisis in research. No developed country in the world economy today will be able to compete in the world market-place unless it keeps up on the leading edge of technology. This is why research is important. Part of that $187 million that Newfoundland would have received this year from the Government of Canada would have gone into paying for professors, classrooms, facilities and courses to teach students not only at university but at the trades college, the fisheries college and all other post-secondary institutions. Also part of it would have gone toward the necessary research which needs to be done if small companies, for example, are to take part in the offshore. Nordco, Secore, and all such organizations were built on research funds which came from the Government of Canada. This is where they got their wherewithal from; this is what allowed them to survive.
One small company in Newfoundland has developed a safety suit for the offshore. The reason it was able to do so was that it had the necessary funding to develop a marketable and useful product, a product which is not only supplying the offshore with a very important function but is supporting a small
May 7, 1986

business in St. John's. That is a direct result of transfers. That is a direct result of established programs financing in the research field. If we do not keep up with research in that province and across the country, we will be unable to compete because we will not be on the leading edge of technology.
In conclusion, the real tragedy is that the Bill hits at the most vulnerable and the most important group in society today as we go into the new age of international competition-the young people who are in danger of becoming a lost generation. For goodness' sake, the Government should pay attention to what people are saying and to the call of young people and reverse this trend. If we must make someone pay, let us not place the burden upon the backs of our young people.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, if Bill C-96 were enacted, it would permit the federal Government of Canada to reduce the federal share of the costs of health services and post-secondary education programs which have been established and improved over recent years. Universal hospital insurance, universal medical insurance, and postsecondary education funding for our universities and community colleges were developed because the then federal Government indicated to the provinces that those services should be improved and brought up to a much higher standard. Also the then Government indicated that it would pay 50 per cent if the provinces agreed. In the case of some of the have-not provinces, it would pay even more than 50 per cent. That was the policy followed and the principle used for many years. That policy continued until the then Liberal Government, using the same arguments we are now hearing from the present Conservative Government, using the 6-and 5-guidelines, cut the amount of spending to the provinces. The then Liberal Government brought in legislation changing the formula giving the provinces under the Established Programs Financing legislation block funds so that the provinces did not have to commit the money they got from the federal Government to health programs or post-secondary education.
The Government is facing a deficit. It says it has to reduce the deficit. It is going to reduce the deficit partly by cutting payments made to the provinces for post-secondary education and health care. The Government knows that the provinces, particularly the have-not provinces, the Province of Newfoundland which has a Conservative Government, the Province of Nova Scotia, which has a Conservative Government, the Province of New Brunswick, which has a Conservative Government, the Province of Prince Edward Island, which had a Conservative Government until a few weeks ago, and the Province of Manitoba, which has a New Democratic Government, are already stretched to the limit and already have been told by the bond-holders that they cannot run bigger deficits than they already have.
What can the provinces do if this Bill passes and the Government begins to pay a smaller share of the cost of funding health care and post-secondary education programs?
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
The provinces can cut back on the standard of services. As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) pointed out a few moments ago, they can cut the number of hospital beds. They can tell the universities to admit fewer students or to have bigger classes. They can impose user-fees. That is one of the tenets of this Conservative Government: make people pay for the services they get even if they cannot afford them, or increase taxes, choices that are almost impossible.
We have to ask ourselves, are we spending too much money for these programs? In 1982, Canada ranked seventh among the 12 countries belonging to the OECD in the proportion of the GDP allocated to public health expenditures. In the expenditure for higher education, we also placed fairly low on the scale in comparison with the other countries in the OECD. What about the field of scientific research and development? We know that Canada does not rank in the middle; we are second from the bottom. Only Italy devotes a smaller percentage of its Gross National Product to scientific research and development than Canada. I am talking about all the countries belonging to the OECD and Japan.
What this Bill proposes is to reduce funding for these programs over what Ottawa paid before, and we are saying to the people of Canada that we will not continue to have the high standards we had before.
Let me make it clear that when we take this position, a position which has also been taken by the Conservative Premiers of the provinces to which I have referred, we are not saying this from a very narrow, political, partisan point of view. Let me put on the record the views expressed by a very eminent Conservative, at least he was known as a Conservative before he was appointed to the bench by a Conservative Prime Minister, Mr. Diefenbaker. Here in part is what Mr. Justice Emmett Hall said in a speech which he gave in Winnipeg on April 3, 1986. He is talking about the state of medicare in Canada today. He said:
The long and short of it is that while we have come a very long way, we are short of the vision on full, comprehensive, accessible, portable coverage in Canada, and we are short on a national strategy of how to get there. In fact, we may be going in the opposite direction.
What this Bill says is, yes, we are going to go in a direction which Mr. Justice Emmett Hall said is the wrong direction. He continued:
But changes are projected, changes that are being called "Expenditure Reduction."-
In simple terms, the federal Government intends to cut spending by $2 billion per year by 1990-91. Over that period, $5.6 billion will not be spent and will instead be withdrawn from planned funding levels.
Then he quoted an organization with which I do not often agree. He quoted from a statement made by the Canadian Medical Association, which reads:
The CMA is especially concerned about the effect of reduced federal funding on poorer provinces like Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and to a lesser extent, Manitoba and Quebec.

May 7, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
1 notice a Minister from the Province of Nova Scotia sitting in the House at the moment. I would encourage him to rise in his seat when I have finished my comments and tell members of the House in what way Mr. Justice Emmett Hall was wrong, if he really believes that Mr. Justice Hall was wrong.
It is very clear that Mr. Justice Hall sees a profound crisis for the provinces in financing cost-shared programs, programs that were begun at the initiative of the federal Government. What does Mr. Justice Hall see for the future of medicare under these conditions? Let us remember that Mr. Justice Hall was asked by the former Conservative Government, headed by Mr. Clark, to study the subject again. He has been the person who led the way in limiting costs to Canadians through extra billing by doctors. Here is what he said:
While federal increases are scheduled, but at a lesser ration, this means that the provinces will have to find the revenues to bridge the projected gap and there is serious doubt that the provinces can bridge this gap particularly in the hospital and institutional field.
So, what will happen if the provinces or most of them cannot fill this gap? It is obvious that in the provincially-owned hospitals, there will be a lowering of standards and an inability to keep up with the state of the art in this field-
With privatization will come drastically increased costs particularly in the hospital field.
He points out that Canada now allocates about 8.4 per cent of the GNP to all forms of health care while in the United States, which does not have our system but where privatization flourishes, 10.9 per cent of GNP is spent for vastly inferior coverage. This is what we have to look forward to after this Bill is passed when the Government implements the provisions of this Bill, Mr. Speaker. We will have lower standards of medical care, less progress in new treatments, privatization of private hospitals and drastically higher costs for private health care. It is the nightmare which the doctors all say they want to avoid and which is now present with the National Health Service in Great Britain. There are two classes of treatment in Great Britain, private affluence for those who can afford it and public squalor for those who cannot.
How can we abandon the services that have meant so much to Canadians? The Government will be hearing from the provinces and the public in the next few months as the cuts become operative.
The Government knows that no service is untouchable; not old age pensions, not higher education with access for all, not medicare, and not even generic drugs, a perfectly useful cost-efficient program which embodies all the competitive forces Conservatives swear they are for. The Government can undertake this policy, but it will reap what it sows. We in the New Democratic Party will anticipate the public's verdict with confidence because we know that the public will not accept the kinds of programs and cut-backs which the Conservative Government proposes to implement.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this amendment. Many of my New Democratic Party colleagues have already spoken. This afternoon you heard from the Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) and the Member from Hamilton, and you just heard from the Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), my good friend and one of the senior members of the House. In my view, they have set forth a formidable case against this Bill.
I just want to address a few words, through you, Mr. Speaker, to British Columbians. We are presently celebrating Expo in British Columbia. The whole town, if not the whole province, with some notable exceptions, is partying because of Expo. I was there last week. It was quite a dazzling occasion with Charles and Diana coming to our province. There are some very spectacular buildings there as, no doubt, Members of the House will see. In particular, the federal Government's Expo building is truly spectacular. It is one of the great buildings of the world. It is a spectacular setting in British Columbia, and it is a party. However, I rise to remind my fellow British Columbians not to forget the reality that after the party is over, we must face the rebuilding our province for the 1990s in order to have lasting prosperity and long-term enjoyment instead of a short-term party.
My riding is less than a kilometre from Expo 86. Last week I learned from a study that 30 per cent of the people in my riding are unemployed. I say this with respect to my friend, the Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey), whose riding has traditionally had high levels of unemployment. There is 30 per cent unemployment in the centre of Vancouver at the time of Expo. Under-employment was also studied and it was found that another 20 per cent are under-employed. Therefore, 50 per cent of the labour force in my riding is either under-employed or unemployed. That is a staggering figure. I will make that study available to Members who are interested. It was done by a group with the proper means and it has been verified. I will speak more about that study later.
What relevance does this have to this Bill? The relevance is that in order to achieve economic recovery in my riding, the rest of British Columbia, and in all of Canada, we need a healthy and educated population. This Bill will result in cutbacks in health care and education in the provinces. There are 19 Conservative Members of Parliament, eight New Democrats, and one Liberal from the Province of British Columbia. I ask the people of British Columbia to go to those Members of Parliament and tell them that they do not want any federal cut-backs which will lead to restraint in education and health.
The people of British Columbia experienced restraint when Bill Bennett, the Premier of British Columbia, brought in some savage restraints after the last election. Those savage restraint measures hurt education and other fields, but particularly education. In British Columbia, for the first time, middle-class kids, who can afford to go to university, cannot get into a university. That is a new situation. There is also the situation of other young people having to incur immense debts because
May 7, 1986

their student grants have been cut back. They must incur immense debt in order to go to university, which debt will be with them for a long time.
We have had experience with cut-backs in education in British Columbia. We know what it is like and we know what will happen in the future if, through this Bill, less money is made available to the provinces to invest in our young people through education and health, which investment would enable us to continue the party which Expo started. That is what will give us enjoyment and prosperity in the future. That would be the proper investment to make. We oppose this Bill because it will have the opposite effect of what we consider is needed in British Columbia. It will incur cut-backs in education when we should be increasing funding for education because it, in my view, is the investment to make in Canada's future.


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. Garneau:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor:
"this House refuse to continue the consideration of this Bill the purpose of which is to unilaterally reduce federal payments to the provinces for postsecondary education and health services which are essential."
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 of the amendment will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will 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 defeated.
Is the House ready for the next question?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions between the parties on the possibility of dealing with two Bills of a technical nature with respect to arbitration in the name of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie). There may be a disposition to move to Bill C-107 and Bill C-108 with the idea that each party would put up one speaker. We might be able to deal with these two Bills at all stages, thereby allowing them to go to the other place.
I should explain that this legislation is required for Expo 86 by May 12. We have been trying to accommodate the timetables of all parties involved.

May 7, 1986
Foreign Arbitral Awards


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Liberal Party, we are prepared to deal with these two Bills now. The Government delayed bringing them forward and has now reached a deadline. We are very sympathetic with the objectives of this legislation and we are prepared to co-operate.


Ian Deans: We are also quite prepared to deal with the two Bills now. I wish it to be clear that each of the opposition Parties will have 15 minutes in order to put their views on the record and one speaker each.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) put forward a motion to adjourn debate on Bill C-96.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I so move the adjournment of the debate, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was ready to participate in debate on Bill C-96, as were a number of my colleagues. It seems that by agreement we are now moving to some other matter. I suggest that the debate be adjourned so that those of us who wish to speak on Bill C-96 can leave. If the matters are disposed of before six o'clock, I suggest that the House adjourn at that time.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, Members of the House know that if there is any possibility of my missing a speech of the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), I would hate to have that happen. I agree to his proposition so that I can hear him tomorrow morning.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I rise on a point or order, Mr. Speaker. Before we proceed to these other matters, will the Government House Leader tell us what we will be dealing with tomorrow morning at eleven o'clock?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We intend to carry on with Bill C-96, Mr. Speaker.
On the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn, the debate was adjourned.


UNITED NATIONS FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS CONVENTION ACT
John Carnell Crosbie: that Bill C-107, an Act to implement the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in my brief remarks I will touch on Bill C-107, which is an Act to implement the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign
Arbitral Awards, and Bill C-108, which is an Act relating to commercial arbitration.
The UN Convention to which Canada wishes to accede was originally agreed upon on June 2, 1958. I am pleased that with the co-operation of the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party, we are able to proceed with these two Bills today. We have been working toward acceding to the UN Convention in Canada and have been enacting legislation which will apply the commercial arbitration procedures to the federal area of jurisdiction for some months now, in cooperation with the Province of British Columbia, which is especially interested in this matter. It is interested because it wishes to establish a commercial arbitration centre in Vancouver. As a matter of fact, on Monday I will be in British Columbia to attend a conference on arbitration sponsored by the Province. Its new arbitration centre will be officially opened at that time. The people of British Columbia hope that its commercial arbitration centre will be the leading place for commercial arbitration in the Pacific Rim. We wish to assist the Province in this objective. Of course, it will vastly enhance the achievement of that objective if Canada accedes to this UN Convention. In any event, it will be to the benefit of the commercial community in Canada. It will be a great boost to those who engage in international trade and export trade to have Canada accede to this Convention.
We have the agreement of all 10 provinces and both territories, which have all agreed that Canada should accede to the Convention. They have all agreed to pass the necessary legislation this spring. As Hon. Members know, there are elections to be held in several provinces, which could delay the matter somewhat. However, all provinces are onside and will join us in passing uniform Bills which will relate to commercial arbitration. British Columbia has already passed such legislation. The matter is now before the legislatures of a number of other provinces and the rest have committed themselves to passing such legislation this spring, or certainly this year.
I will not elaborate any further on the matter. This is a matter of private international law. It is a step which Canada should have taken some considerable time ago. I am pleased to be in the position to move that the House adopt both of these Bills. I believe it is agreed that we pass them through all stages today. I will then be able to pass the news on to the Province and to those who attend this meeting next week in British Columbia that the federal Government has agreed to the legislation. I have no doubt that the Senate will move quickly on the matter.
I thank my colleagues in the Opposition for their cooperation in this endeavour.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, Members of the House know of the great respect I have for the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie). It is not only because of that respect that I am pleased to be able to support these Bills and their quick passage. It is also because of their importance.
May 7, 1986

The Province of British Columbia has been looking forward to such legislation for some time. In fact, it has assumed for such a long time that it would be forthcoming that it set May 12 as the day on which it will establish an international arbitration centre as part of its Expo festivities. Therefore we are showing unusual co-operation in that we do not want to take the time to refer the matters to legislative committees and to call private sector witnesses who could, no doubt, assist us in improving the legislation. We are willing to dispense with those procedures in order to meet the deadline which will soon be upon us. It is certainly an important event for British Columbia and for Canada.
Those of us who were involved in commercial litigation in private life know how expensive and time-consuming it can be. We also know that when commercial litigation occurs, it is the consumer who has to pay in the end. Many years ago there was an initiative to which Canada is finally joining to try to provide for less formal and less costly ways of resolving commercial disputes. Commercial private arbitration tribunals are the method.
While Canada sat back, this system developed in many other countries. A system for reciprocal enforcement of arbitration awards also developed. Canada sat back for a number of reasons. The easiest one to understand is with respect to the divided responsibility in this area. The federal Government is responsible for international affairs while the provinces are responsible for the resolution of private disputes within their jurisdictions.
With that kind of divided legislative responsibility, the issue rode on for years and years. I am sure I am not the only Member of Parliament who received delegations in their offices over the years wanting to encourage Canada to take an initiative which would lead to this regime being established, to the establishment of the international agreement and, after reciprocal legislation was passed by the provinces, to the establishment of this way of efficiently and consensually resolving disputes among commercial litigants.
I want to say a word about the activities of the former Government in this area. I know that efforts were made by the former Government-and this is available for corroboration with provincial Governments-to move this dossier forward. In the regrettable state of relations between the federal and provincial Governments, it was very difficult to move matters like this one forward. It is regrettable that the kind of partisan rivalry, if I may put it that way, which existed between the two levels of Government over the last few years prevented many good measures from moving forward. This was one.
Be that as it may, the new Government, the Conservative Government, took the proper initiative and carried forward the file with far more success than that enjoyed by the former Government, of which I was a part. It was able to enlist provincial support. With the deadline of May 12 ahead of it, it
Foreign Arbitral Awards
managed to produce a climate in which this legislation could be brought forward.
As I said, I regret that the Government waited until the last minute, but I do not think we should make the City of Vancouver and the Province of British Columbia suffer for that. Therefore, on behalf of my party I waive all requirements which would allow us close detailed scrutiny of the legislation, the opportunity to improve it, and the opportunity to bring it to the attention of the country so that Canadians would be aware of the important step being taken today and of what lies behind it. I am pleased, on behalf of my Party, to offer our support of this legislation and of this method of expediting its passage.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased as a British Columbian Member of Parliament to rise today in this very exceptional procedure to indicate my support for the legislation currently before the House. Of course the legislation will enable Canada to implement the 1958 United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. The effect of this would be that foreign arbitral awards could be enforced in Canada for the first time. As well, the new legislation would provide specific statutory authority to federal Departments and Crown corporations to enter into arbitration agreements.
I have had an opportunity to discuss the provisions of this legislation with departmental officials. I raised two or three specific areas of concern, but I am satisfied that these concerns have been addressed in the legislation currently before the House. Certainly there is no question that arbitration is a much more effective and less costly way of resolving commercial disputes than litigation. At the present time in Canada there is no federal legislation governing the conduct of international commercial arbitration in Canada.
Another concern is that at the present time there is confusion regarding the authority of federal Departments and Crown corporations to enter into arbitration agreements. This new legislation would remedy this by specifically granting statutory authority to federal Departments and Crown corporations to enter into arbitration agreements.
I want to emphasize particularly the fact that the first international commercial arbitration centre to be established in Canada is to be established in my Province of British Columbia. Hopefully the Province of British Columbia will be attracting significant professional and service work. Certainly at a time of very, very high levels of unemployment we can only hope that the establishment of this international commercial arbitration centre will result in more jobs and more economic activity. As well, the legislation should assist in improving our trade relationships, particularly in the Pacific Rim and also in other countries. Many of the disputes which currently involve Asian, North American and European countries are presently being resolved in the United States or

May 7, 1986
Commercial Arbitration
in Europe. For the first time there will be an opportunity to resolve these disputes in Canada.
I want to note that Canada is the last industrialized nation to accede to this convention. The United Nations adopted the convention in 1958, and it is almost 30 years overdue that Canada adhered to it.
I raised two areas of concern with departmental officials. The first concern was the possibility of certain reservations to the convention. Many states have relied upon what is referred to as the reciprocity reservation. Indeed, the initial advice from departmental officials to provincial Governments was that the reciprocity convention or reservation should be relied upon. However, it now appears that having studied the matter the federal Government is of the opinion that this reciprocity reservation is not necessary. That was certainly one area which I discussed with the officials. We are prepared, on balance, to recognize that the legislation should go forward without it.
The other area of concern which I raised was the fact that one of the parties to the convention was South Africa. I would hope that as a matter of public policy Canada would not in any way be prepared to co-operate with or recognize arbitral awards which flowed from South African business dealings. I would hope that as a matter of public policy that would be the decision taken by the Government. I am told that it is impossible to write that formally into the legislation now before the House, but I urge the Government to implement it as a matter of public policy.
In closing, I would note that I look forward to the next Government in the Province of British Columbia, a Government led by Premier Bob Skelly, being in a position to attract business activity to this new B.C. international commercial arbitration centre which we all desire.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Crosbie, seconded by Mr. Hnatyshyn, moves that Bill C-107, an Act to implement the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Danis in the chair.
Marcel Danis: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-107, an Act to implement the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Shall Clause 2 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Crosbie, seconded by Mr. Hnatyshyn, moves that the Bill be concurred in-


Robert Phillip Kaplan: They are not here.


Mr. Nickerson:: On a point of order-


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think there would be agreement to substitute their names with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) and the Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Bissonnette) who are present in the Chamber at this time.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (for the Minister of Justice) moved: that the Bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the third
time? By leave, now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION ACT
Donald Frank Mazankowski: that Bill C-108, an Act relating to commercial arbitration be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Danis in the Chair.
Clauses 2 to 11 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
May 7, 1986
[Stage Direction]
Bill reported.
Donald Frank Mazankowski: that the Bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak on this Bill as I did on the preceding one and to refer those who want to follow the debate on Bill C-108 to the earlier Bill and the reasons for not developing our arguments and position on the Bill and to ask that the Bill be adopted.
Commercial Arbitration
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the agreement reached earlier, I move that the House adjourn for the balance of the day.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to call it six o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.46 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, May 8, 1986


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, last Thursday the Supreme Court of Canada rendered two judgments which substantially reduced the constitutional language rights of French and Englishspeaking Canadians. The court ruled that Section 133 of the Constitution, 1867 gave the state-that is, cities, provinces, and the federal Government-the right to choose the language of a summons or proceeding before a federal and Quebec court, not the citizen who is called to answer before the court. This is a regrettable and illogical judgment. Surely the rights entrenched in Section 133, which allow the use of French or English before the courts, are to benefit individuals, not the state.
As a result of these judgments, a constitutional amendment is required to clarify and restore those rights. I urge the Government to respond positively to this request.